Central Information Commission
Ashish Jain vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As per Annexure
Ashish Jain ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Supervision,
Reserve Bank of India, Central
Office, Centre 1, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005,
Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023
Date of Decision : 23/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
File RTI CPIO Reply First FA Order Second
No. Application Appeal Appeals/complaint
634931 25.04.2022 26.05.2022 27.05.2022 22.06.2022 NIL
641762 27.05.2022 27.06.2022 28.06.2022 28.07.2022 NIL
643940 03.06.2022 04.07.2022 04.07.2022 08.08.2022 NIL
650148 19.06.2022 19.07.2022 19.07.2022 15.09.2022 NIL
652325 05.05.2022 30.05.2022 12.08.2022 23.09.2022 NIL
654313 27.05.2022 27.06.2022 27.06.2022 28.07.2022 NIL
654320 29.07.2022 26.08.2022 30.08.2022 Not on NIL
record
654321 30.07.2022 26.08.2022 30.08.2022 Not on NIL
record
654312 30.07.2022 26.08.2022 26.08.2022 Not on NIL
record
654325 29.07.2022 25.08.2022 29.08.2022 Not on NIL
1
record
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/634931
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please share information as require:-
A) refer your letter CO.DOS.SED.No.S403816-01-137/2021-2022 dated March,23,2022,I need examined & concluded complete detail action and revert wise as taken by RBI as mentioned since Jan-22 to March-23 as per my registered PG PMOPG/E/2022/0005926 under DNBS.
B) Shall Captioned matter is not lay in department of Non Banking Supervision, if no then why and if yes then why PG has been disposed without any kind of action.
C) What is meaning of RBI guideline that Where stated that The Board of Directors of NBFCs should also lay down the appropriate grievance mechanism within the organisation to resolve the dispute arising in this regard. Please revert once Board of director has failed to resolve the grievances Shall RBI is not responsible to examined under DNBS.
D) Once HDB financial Services Ltd has allegations over me of IT DATA Transferred or Theft then shall NBFC has informed to RBI under Information and cyber-Security guideline issued by RBI. If yes then please share complete detail of information share by NBFC to RBI under Guideline Point no.3.6.
E)Shall RBI has also examined and collect evidence of IS from NBFC, as NBFC has allegations over me but not shared any evidence till dated. if yes then please share information or not then why RBI is not examine this. Please revert in detail.
Please share complete information as requested."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 26.05.2022 stating as under:
"1.The conclusion of the said examination has been shared with the applicant vide letter CO.DOS SED. No. S403816-01-137/2021- 2022 dated March 23, 2022.2
2.The supervision of HUB Financial Services Ltd (NBFC against which Shri Ashish Jain had complained) is under the purview of Department of Supervision. It may be noted that the Department of Non-Banking Supervision has been unified with Department of Banking Supervision to form Department of Supervision. Thus, the captioned matter was handled by the Department of Supervision.
3.What is being sought is not "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4.No such incident has been reported to us.
5.Please refer to our reply to query no. 1."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2022. FAA's order 22.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/641762 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"refer your RBIND/R/E/22/02361 Dated 26 May 22 RTI reply where No such incident has been reported to RBI by NBFC. Please share below information under RTI Act.
1.in what context does RBI take the allegation of IT DATA Theft by NBFC.where as No IT DATA theft has been reported to RBI as per Cyber security Guideline Annex-I (to be reported within 24 hrs after incident happened in NBFC as per Guideline) whereas unlike what NBFC complainant Ashish Jain is being accused of IT DATA Theft by NBFC through legal Notice and filed Civil Suit Case in Kota against me in this regard does RBI accept it as per Guideline where as Rs.10000 from Salary and reliving letter of complainant Ashish Jain has been held by NBFC HDB Financial services Ltd due to Allegation of IT DATA Theft Since November-21 to till dated. Please share complete information.
2.Why did not RBI Examine Cyber Security incident which is constantly being alleged by HDB Financial Services Ltd that 11 mails which contains huge company DATA Theft over me and refer RTI reply no information has been reported to RBI by NBFC HDB finance .What was main root cause reason to not examine this issue by RBI once complainant sending emails to RBI in this regard.3
3.Whether any action is pending at the level of Department of Supervision if yes or not. please share information.
4.Whether NBFC has the right to take legal action against the complainant without informing the RBI with out evidence or facts and not to inform RBI as per guideline regarding IT DATA theft whether RBI considers It correct if yes then why and if not in this regard when the NBFC has taken legal action and filed civil suit for IT DATA theft against the complainant Ashish Jain, does the RBI agree with the action of the NBFC.
Please find enclosement and share complete information."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 27.06.2022 stating as under:
"1. The query is not clear/specific.
2 to 4. What is being sought is not "information as defined under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2022. FAA's order 28.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/643940 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"Whether there is any such guideline or rule issued to NBFCs that without evidence and on the basis of facts, NBFCs can harass the employee mentally harassed by accusing him of theft If the proof is not sent even on demand should it be considered that the NBFC is taking action as per the guidelines of RBI if yes then mention clearly with reasons.
What action has been taken so far by the RBI by the RBI for not taking proper action on the complaints sent by the complainant as well as the factual reports of IT data theft by the NBFCs on the many applications sent by the complainant If not why RBI does not consider it a violation of the guidelines. please share the complete report with action so that the complainant gets relief.4
Whether NBFCs have the right without any facts and on the basis of no evidence to withhold the salary of Rs 10000 (please refer page no 10 as enclosed report) and relieving letter of the employee as well as tarnish the reputation of the employee by falsely accusing him of theft of IT data thereby destroying his entire service record Go and file legal notice and suit in civil court against employee is it a rule in RBIs guideline if so please mention by way of this employee has to faced too much financial crisis to run family because of unemployment and Image Spoiled.
Whether RBI empowers the NBFC to tarnish the reputation of the fired employee by making false allegation and without complying with the RBI rules by following all the rules and regulations of its institution so that he can go anywhere in future Could not get jobs in other institutions if yes why and if not why not action taken by RBI as per necessary rules.
Is this right Process of NBFC against Employee who served 6 yrs in HDB Finance as Credit Manager with awarded Best Performance by top management while on resignation with followed complete process and company official accepted after that allegation imposed of IT DATA Theft."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 04.07.2022 stating as under:
"1. What is being sought is an opinion and not "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. The conclusion of the examination of the complaint has been shared with the applicant vide letter CO.DOS.SED.No.S403816-01-137/2021-2022 dated March 23, 2022.
3 & 4. What is being sought is an opinion and not "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2022. FAA's order 08.08.2022, held as under:-
"I have examined the RTI application, reply given by the CPIO and the appeal preferred by the appellant. It is observed in respect of Query Nos. 1, 3 & 4 that the appellant has narrated certain factual circumstances and requested for information, which would require the CPIO to frame an opinion and provide information. In this regard, I may observe that under the RTI Act, the CPIO is 5 bound to provide only that 'information' which is in the possession of the public authority. The term 'information' as defined in the Act does not include any opinion or view to be formulated by the public authority. I agree with the CPIO that the query was in the nature of seeking an opinion to be formulated by the CPIO and hence not 'information' as defined under the Act. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhya and Ors (2011) 8 SCC 497:
"35. .... It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
6. As regards Query No. 2, CPIO has informed the Appellant that the information has been provided to him vide letter CO.DOS.SED.No. S403816-01-137/2021-2022 dated March 23, 2022, which contained the conclusion of the examination of his complaint. As such, I do not find any necessity to issue any direction to the CPIO for providing information in this regard.
7. As regards the prayer of the Appellant to inform him the reason for having name of CPIO on portal different from the name of the CPIO in the reply issued to the appellant, it may be observed that what is being sought is fresh information, which at the appellate stage cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, in terms of section 5(1) of the RTI Act, there is no restriction on the number of officers who could be designated as CPIOs in all administrative units or offices of the Public Authority.
8. In view of my observations as above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly."
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/650148 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2022 seeking the following information:6
"A) What is action taken on finance Ministry forwarded request on 05-may-22 & 1-June-22 through RTI and enclosed application. Please share complete application report with detail wise.
B) According to Cyber Security Guideline of RBI where Point 3.6 Sharing of Information on Cyber Security incidents with RBI are cleared confirmed that NBFC are required to report all types of unusual security incidents as specified in Point no.2 of Annex I which deals with basic information including Cyber Security Incidents as specified in CSIR form of Annex I .where Theft or loss of information example Sensitive customer or business stolen or missing or destroyed or corrupted to be share complete information with RBI with in 24 Hours. But NBFC has not followed this rule of RBI and not reported to RBI as confirmed by RBI wide RTI RBIND R E 22 02361 reply further IT DATA theft allegation also imposed over complainant and send legal notice and filled Civil Suit in Court as well. Once all incident has been reported by complainant on dated 21-March-22 with send email to Governor and deputy governor Desk as well.
Why RBI was not examined this matter of IT DATA Theft at that time means since Dec-21 to March-22 once complainant regular approached through chains of Email to RBI to examine this matter. Once RBI has confirmed that NBFC has no reported any such incident to RBI in RTI reply.
If the IT DATA Theft is not reported to RBI by NBFC can it be assumed that it is an act of wrong fales and willful act by NBFC which is totally wrong whether RBI believes it to be correct if yes so does RBI propose to impose penalty and other restrictions on the NBFC and at the same time direct the NBFC to pay compensation to the complainant due to which the complainants goodwill has been spoiled."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.07.2022 stating as under:
"1. The RTI application transferred to RBI by Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance was registered as RBIND/R/X/22/00049 and the subsequent appeal filed against the reply provided by CPIO, RBI was registered as RBIND/A/E/22/00476.
2. This is not 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2022. FAA's order 15.09.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
7CIC/RBIND/A/2022/652325 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"On 24 Dec 21 and 19 Jan 22 Hon'ble President OSD has directed to Finance Ministry Official on email to take action and inform to petitioner. What is action the finance ministry official has been taken on this matter twice time after received email instruction from President Secretariat office further and how many times finance Ministry officials has taken followup over this matter with which concern authority and department please share concern authority detail with email id and what is reply or resolution over this please share complete information and what is information finance ministry has shared with petitioners as directed by President OSD.
If yes then please share complete detail or not then why please share delay information with justify reason.as matter more than 90 days over but no information or detail has shared by finance ministry officials. Please share complete information."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 30.05.2022 stating as under:
"Information sought is not available with us."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2022. FAA's order 23.09.2022, held as under:
"I have perused the relevant records. As regards the statement of CPIO as aforesaid is concerned, it is observed that the same was made not in the CPIO's reply but on the RTI portal while uploading the reply. In any case, the appellant had already exercised his right of appeal against the reply dated 30.05.2022 given by the CPIO and as such there was no further option available to the appellant to file another appeal. Again, the request made in the appeal is nothing but a request for a fresh information and not for any information that was sought in the original request. As such, the present appeal as made by the appellant is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed as such.8
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The order may be served on the appellant."
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654313 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"refer your RBIND/R/E/22/02361 Dated 26 May 22 RTI reply where No such incident has been reported to RBI by NBFC. Please share below information under RTI Act.
1.In what context does RBI take the allegation of IT DATA Theft by NBFC. Where as No IT DATA theft has been reported to RBI as per Cyber security Guideline Annex-I (to be reported within 24 hrs after incident happened in NBFC as per Guideline) whereas unlike what NBFC complainant Ashish Jain is being accused of IT DATA Theft by NBFC through legal Notice and filed Civil Suit Case in Kota against me in this regard does RBI accept it as per Guideline where as Rs.10000 from Salary and reliving letter of complainant Ashish Jain has been held by NBFC HDB Financial services Ltd due to Allegation of IT DATA Theft Since November-21 to till dated. Please share complete information.
2.Why did not RBI Examine Cyber Security incident which is constantly being alleged by HDB Financial Services Ltd that 11 mails which contains huge company DATA Theft over me and refer RTI reply no information has been reported to RBI by NBFC HDB finance. What was main root cause reason to not examine this issue by RBI once complainant sending emails to RBI in this regard.
3.Whether any action is pending at the level of Department of Supervision if yes or not. Please share information.
4.Whether NBFC has the right to take legal action against the complainant without informing the RBI with out evidence or facts and not to inform RBI as per guideline regarding IT DATA theft whether RBI considers It correct if yes then why and if not in this regard when the NBFC has taken legal action and filed civil suit for IT DATA theft against the complainant Ashish Jain, does the RBI agree with the action of the NBFC. Please find enclosement and share complete information."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 27.06.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 The query is not clear/specific.9
Point No. 2 to 4 What is being sought is not 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2022. FAA's order 28.07.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654320 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Whether RBI has disclosed IT DATA Theft or Transferred incident also in its issued letter CO.DOS.SED.No.S4038/16-01-137/2021-22 dated 23-March22,if yes in which line of RBI issued letter this thing has presented. Please share information.
2. What is RBI stand for this ? which has followed by NBFC ie Issued Legal Notice and filled Civil Suits in Kota CIVIL SUIT/140/2022 & Civil Misc connected 41/118/2022 for IT DATA allegation without presented evidence till dated with RBI over employee as per RBI cyber security information guideline are correct. Please share information.
3.Whether IT DATA Theft or Transferred allegations are right or wrong according to RBI Cyber Security Information Guideline which has imposed by NBFC HDB Financial Services Ltd ex employee Mr.Ashish Jain that 11 emails has transferred/theft on personal email which contains huge company secrete Data as per NBFC reported in its enquiry report dated 10-Feb-22.and In RBI Guideline it has cleared mentioned that if any dispute with employee. It has also covered in this RBI guideline. Please refer RBI Cyber Security Information Guideline.
4 After Dated 20-Nov-21 when this incident was observed by HDB Financial Whether NBFC-HDB Financial Services Ltd has reported to RBI to book loss or damage Goodwill with this reason is in quarterly financial report or publishes in any media medium. Please share information.
5.On Dated 10-Feb-22 Enquiry officer Mr. Shailendra Bhosle HDB Financial Services Ltd arranged its enquiry report clearly disclosed that 11 emails has been transferred on personal Id by Mr.Ashish Jain and on another side NBFC HDB 10 Financial Services Ltd has declared that We have suspense over Mr. Ashish Jain of IT Data 11 emails theft during Central Assistant Labor Commissioner (Central),Kota .What is RBI stand on this as per RBI Cyber Security Information Guideline for replied by NBFC .Please refer enclosed Page No.1 Labour KT report. Request to you please open and Zoom it and read as Highlighted with Red color Border where HDB Financial services ltd had given statement.
6.Why NBFC has yet not reported to RBI such incident (when NBFC has declared 11 emails of Company Secrete Data has been transferred or theft) as Cyber Security Guideline) till dated. Shall it is not mandatory as per RBI Guideline to report this incident. Please share information.
7.Whether RBI will take action on this matter against HDB Financial Services Ltd. after reporting by Mr.Ashish Jain .if yes then what type of action would RBI take or has taken in earlier, then please share information.
8.Whether RBI has asked to NBFC in this context earlier or not after reported by Mr.Ashish Jain to RBI. If yes then Please share information. or not then please share exact reason as per RBI act and guideline.
Please share complete information as per RTI ACT 2005 2(F)."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 26.08.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 The applicant may refer to the letter CO.DOS.SED.No.S4038/16-01- 137/2021-22 dated 23 March 2022 for the information sought.
Point No. 2 & 3 What is being sought is not an 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 4 The information sought is not available with us.
Point No. 5 to 7 What is being sought is not as 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Point No. 8 The query is not clear and specific.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.08.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654321 11 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654312 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI applications dated 30.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please share information.
As Replied by RBI in RTI wide RBIND/R/E/22/02361 that No such incident has been reported to RBI, Is it not break of RBI guidelines by NBFC .if not then why and if yes then what RBI has taken action after this over NBFC-HDB Financial Services Ltd.
Whether it is RBI process that without provide any facts (either related to customer information or company related DATA ) NBFC can imposed IT DATA theft allegations as per Cyber Security Guideline of RBI. does NBFC having any rights to take action legally without follow RBI guideline. What is RBI Guideline in this matter. Please share information.
If the any bank or NBFC do violation of the RBI guidelines and rules which has issued by the RBI, then what is process of penalty action as per RBI guidelines, please share information with rules and regulations."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.08.2022 stating as under:
"The applicant has not sought 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeals dated 30/08/2022 & 26/08/2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/RBIND/A/2022/645325 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"1.Whether RBI has called to NBFC that Which kind of IT DATA theft or transferred by Mr.Ashish Jain as per NBFC allegation i.e Nature of Data, Date and email return receipts. Because RBI CPIO has declared in RTI no. RBIND/R/T/22/00495 that the conclusion of the examination of the complaint received by SSM Section has been shared with the applicant vide letter CO DOS /SED No.S403816-01-137-2021 2022- 12 Dated 23-march22because received complaint of Mr. Ashish Jain cleared mentioned IT DATA Transferred evidence. If RBI has arranged to applicant then Please share information with document.
2. As RTI Replied wide RTI application no. by CPIO RBIND/R/E/22/02361 Dated 23- May-22 No Such Incident has been reported to RBI. as per Cyber Security Guidelines Annex-I (whereas as per the guidelines the IT data theft in the NBFC should be reported to RBI within 24 hours of occurrence) Why NBFC-HDB Financial Services Ltd. has not reported to RBI. whether any reason behind this. Please share information.
3.Please share information of dispatched Speed post docket wise detail where RBI RTI replied and order hardcopy delivered to applicant. Because multiple RTI request has been raised no any hard copy of RTI application replied and order copy received to applicant. If not dispatch then please share exact reason as per RTI Act 2005 2(F).whether it has mentioned that only soft copy is sufficient with applicant to share information."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 25.08.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 No such information has been sought from the concerned NBFC by RBI.
Point No. 2 The applicant has not sought an 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.
Point No. 3 The query is not specific as to which RTI application has been referred to."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.13
Respondent: Shri Abhishek Joshi, AGM and Ms. Amrutha T J, Legal Officer present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of instant Appeals as mentioned above expressed his dissatisfaction that relevant information has not been provided to him till date. He harped on the fact that he has sought specific information in his above mentioned RTI applications but misleading and wrong replies were provided to him by the CPIO. Further, the Appellant during the hearing had raised his grievance w.r.t the guidelines of RBI which are not being followed by the Public Authority in IT theft cases and as to why the RBI has not examined the allegation made by the company (HDB Financial Services Ltd.) against him.
The CPIO submitted that complete point-wise reply/information as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant on all his above mentioned RTI applications. Further, the FAA had also upheld the replies given by the CPIO. The CPIO further submitted that the queries as raised by the Appellant in his RTI applications are more in the nature of seeking explanations, opinions, advices from the CPIO but the CPIO is not expected to give clarifications, etc under the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, they have made efforts to provide the information as held by them in material form and has provided to the Appellant copy of relevant guidelines/circulars, etc. which are also available in public domain.
The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the matter of the Appellant is related to HDB Financial Services Ltd. and it is the dispute between the employer and the employee. A civil suit in this regard is also pending before the Court for adjudication. On a query from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that they have furnished their latest written submissions along with the annexures with the Appellant in all the above mentioned appeals.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the replies provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Applications merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries viz. "Why RBI was not examined this matter of IT DATA Theft at that time means since Dec-21 to March-22 once complainant regular approached through chains of Email to RBI to examine this matter. Once RBI has 14 confirmed that NBFC has no reported any such incident to RBI in RTI reply if the IT DATA Theft is not reported to RBI by NBFC can it be assumed that it is an act of wrong fales and willful act by NBFC which is totally wrong whether RBI believes it to be correct if yes so does RBI propose to impose penalty and other restrictions on the NBFC and at the same time direct the NBFC to pay compensation to the complainant due to which the complainants goodwill has been spoiled; Whether it is RBI process that without provide any facts (either related to customer information or company related DATA ) NBFC can imposed IT DATA theft allegations as per Cyber Security Guideline of RBI. does NBFC having any rights to take action legally without follow RBI guideline. What is RBI Guideline in this matter. Please share information", etc. It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO provided the response to the Appellant on each of his RTI application as mentioned above; in the spirit of RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
15"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.16
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 "20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", 17 the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. Further, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Sl No. File No. 1 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/634931 18 2 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/641762 3 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/643940 4 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/650148 5 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/652325 6 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654313 7 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654320 8 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654321 9 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654325 10 CIC/RBIND/A/2022/654312 19