Central Information Commission
Rahul Das vs Ministry Of Women & Child Development on 27 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOWCD/A/2023/602234
Rahul Das .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Women and Child
Development, Women Welfare
Division, 3rd Floor, Jeevan
Vihar Building, Parliament
Street, New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024
Date of Decision : 24.05.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.11.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.11.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
(1) "A person will never commit adultery in an open space, then even if some instances of adultery are provided to court, why the wife can escape the law that though she was involved in OCCASSIONAL ADULTERY, but she was not LIVING IN ADULTERY? Is it not the fact that if a husband tries to get proof and enters her bedroom and films the scenes, then again, the husband be charged with the law of RIGHT TO PRIVACY of the wife?
(2) By our Indian law, a husband has to be committed to be dutiful towards his wife, otherwise he has to go through legal consequences.
Now, my question is, does the wife has to be committed to perform her duties towards her husband by Indian law, and if she does not perform or does not remain trustworthy towards her husband, what are the ACTUAL legal consequences which does not go in rounds in courts for multiple years (similar to wife granted an interim maintenance during pendency of a case against her husband)? Also, what are the official/legal duties of a wife towards her husband (similar to the husband having legal/moral duty to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her)? All the lawyers say even if the wife does something wrong, then in most cases it cannot be proved in court and the men definitely have to suffer as per our current law.
(3) Though the Indian Constitution says the term EQUALITY, but why we are still not having GENDER NEUTRAL LAWS even after seeing the woman-centric laws are getting highly misused as per NCRB data for last several years?
(4) Why there is still no law to provide a judgement in the same case if the woman who falsely frames her husband (or any man) and his family in criminal cases, is proven wrong?"
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Page 2 of 4 Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh, Under Secretary and CPIO, appeared in person The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 24.04.2023 which is reproduced as under:
"It is informed that the RTI Act, 2005 cast an obligation on the Public Authority to provide the available information in the same form in which it has been held by the CPIO and not to create information or respond to the queries or reply to hypothetical questions. The undersigned CPIO has no further information to provide."
The respondent apologised for the delay occurred in replying to the RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent has replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 24.04.2023. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that information sought by the appellant is not specific and definite. The information sought by the appellant was in the form of queries which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent were taken on record.
Further, it is noted that the DoP&T vide OM No. 1/7/2009-IR dated 01.06.2009 and 20.05.2011 had informed that the High Court of Bombay at Goa in its decision dated 03.04.2018 in WP (C) no. 419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission, has observed that the term "information" as defined in the RTI Act does not include answer to the question like "why"". The relevant part of the judgment as mentions supra OM is reproduced as under:
"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answer to the question why which would be same thing as asking the reasons for a justification for Page 3 of 4 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."
In view of the above and the reply having been given, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not called for in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Women and Child Development, B Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - - 110001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)