Central Information Commission
Abhinay Lakshman vs Ministry Of Tribal Affairs on 19 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MOTLA/C/2024/621296
Shri Abhinay Lakshman निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Education Society for Tribal Students
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025
Date of Decision : 16.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2024
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1.a. On which date did the Ministry of Tribal Affairs introduce reservation (5% for PVTGS and 5% for DNTS, NTS, SNTs) in EMRSs across the country?
1.b. On which date were these two quotas for DNTs and PVTGs start being implemented across EMRSs in the country?
1.c. What is the total number of ALL students currently enrolled at ALL functional EMRSS across the country? Please list school-wise information on number of students
1.d. What is the total number of Scheduled Tribe students currently enrolled at ALL functional EMRSs across the country? Please list school-wise information on number of students
1.e. What is the total number of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG) students currently enrolled at ALL functional EMRSs across the country? Please list school-wise information on number of students
1.f. What is the total number of Denotified Tribes students currently enrolled at ALL functional EMRSs across the country? Please list school-wise information on number of students. Etc."Page 1 of 3
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 13.06.2025 has been received from the Dy. Commissioner, National Education Society for Tribal Students stating that response had been duly provided to the Complainant's queries.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present Respondent: Ms. Kumud Kushwaha - Dy. Commissioner, National Education Society for Tribal Students was present during hearing.
The Respondent stated that reply had been sent to the Complainant, and the Complainant also admitted the same. However the Complainant stated that there was some delay in furnishing of the information by the Respondent.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the parties, it is noted that the Respondent's reply is legally appropriate. Considering the bulky nature of information, the delay in collating the same is found acceptable.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent the information, following due course of law as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent Page 2 of 3 is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
The Respondent is advised to take steps for suo motu disclosure of maximum information on their website, in compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act in order to promote transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authority. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Section 8 and 9 RTI Act and redact any information which falls under any of the exemption clauses by applying the severability clause as laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
In the light of the fact that information available on record with the Respondent stands duly furnished to the Complainant, hence the case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to publish following information or following categories of information in compliance with section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005- Suo moto disclosure of maximum information on the website as per Section 4(2) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)