Central Information Commission
Sudhir Chaudhary vs Department Of Law, Justice And ... on 22 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DLJLA/A/2017/194084
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2018
Date of Decision : 01.08.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Sudhir Chaudhary
Respondent : PIO/Executive Magistrate,
Chanakya Puri, Sub-Divison, O/o
the District Magistrate, (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi)
2.PIO/Department of Law Justice &
Legislative Affairs (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi),
3.PIO/Sub-Divisional Magistrate-
III-(HQ), Legal Cell, O/o. the
Divisional Commissioner (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi)
4. PIO/ O/o. the Dy.
Commissioner, Revenue
Department (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2016
PIO replied on : 21.10.2016
First Appeal filed on : 05.11.2016
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 20.12.2016
ORDER
1. The present appeal is predicated upon non receipt of information by the appellant. It would be relevant to narrate the factual matrix espousing the present case.
2. On 9th February 2016, a protest was allegedly staged at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus against the capital punishment meted out to the 2001 Indian Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. A radical group of individuals, shouted "anti-India" slogans. The event was video graphed and broadcasted by some prominent news channels. The same went on to become a national headline and sparked outrageous reactions nationwide. However, a controversy as regards the authenticity of the video footage showing certain persons shouting anti-national slogans soon erupted. In the foregoing context, some JNU students were arrested by Delhi Police for their alleged role in the anti national activities.
3. In April 2016, the Delhi Govt. took cognizance of the controversy involved and approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi seeking criminal action against the three news channels alleged to have broadcasted a 'doctored' video of the JNU protest. A criminal complaint was filed against Zee News, News X, and India News with allegations of having knowingly and with malicious intent caused damage to JNU students and the university. Charges under Sections 465 (punishment for forgery) and 471 (using as genuine forged document or electronic record) of the IPC were pressed against the news channels and their respective editors.
4. In the aforesaid context, the appellant herein, being the editor of the Zee news sought the following information vide RTI application dated 12.05.2016 :
1. What is the process of filing a criminal complaint on behalf of Govt. of NCT of Delhi?
2. Who holds the authority in granting permission to file complaint on behalf of NCT of Delhi, whether Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor or Hon'ble Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi?
3. What process was followed in filing criminal complaint under section 190 and 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure tilted State (NCT of Delhi) Vs M/s. Zee News & Ors. Filed in the court of Shri Sumit Dass, Hon'ble CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi which was listed on 25.04.2016?
4. Who has granted the permission to Shri Sunil Dutt Sharma, working as SDM, Vasant Vihar Delhi to file complaint against news channels titled as State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Zee News & Ors. Filed in the court of Shri Sumit Dass, Hon'ble CMM, Patiala House Courts News Delhi and listed on 25.06.2016?
5. Copy of entire file granting the permission to file the complaint titled as State (NCT of Delhi Vs Zee News & Ors.) filed in the court of Shri Sumit Dass, Hon'ble CMM, Patiala House Courts News Delhi and listed on 25.06.2016 etc.
5. The APIO/Executive Magistrate, Chanakya Puri Sub-Division vide letter dated 25.07.2016 stated that the requisite information was not available in Sub-Division, Chanakya Puri. The RTI application was transferred successively to concerned department many times but the appellant did not get the reply of his RTI application. The appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
6. The appellant is absent during the course of hearing. The respondent from Dept of Law & Justice, GNCTD is present and heard. The respondent submits that the RTI application was transferred to the relevant quarter i.e. SDM - Vasant Vihar area. Upon a query from the Commission as to whether the RTI was replied, the respondents are clueless. The Commission finds that the PIO ought to have transferred the notice of hearing to the transferee PIO. A perusal of the record shows that the complaint in the matter on behalf of Delhi Govt was pursued by SDM, Vasant Vihar. Hence, he is the custodian of information as regards the authorization / basis of his complaints made before CMM, New Delhi.
7. The appellant has been approached against on the basis of the complaint filed by Delhi Govt. Thus, he had an equitable right to know as to on the basis of what incriminating material, fact finding enquiry and under whose directions, the SDM approached the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against him and other similarly situated journalists. Freedom of press is hallmark of democracy. The present instance of denial of information has a direct bearing on the moral of the fourth pillar of democracy. If as per the respondents, the appellant and others were not doing fair reporting of news, the respondents ought to have readily shared the information. Stonewalling the information sought does not further the cause of transparency. Delay or denial in such cases invokes suspicion.
8. None of the queries are exempted from disclosure. The PIO/SDM Vasant Vihar is directed to furnish complete information within 3 weeks of the receipt of the order.
9. Since there has been no justification brought on record for the delay in replying to the RTI application and the apparent stonewalling of the information; let a show cause for the maximum penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act be issued to the then PIO/ SDM Vasant Vihar. Reply, if any be filed before the Commission by 14.09.2018. Show cause be served through the FAA & the present PIO.
10. List for further penalty proceedings on 20.09.2018.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer