Central Information Commission
Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 6 December, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/140224
Mukesh Kumar Yadav ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Social Welfare Board,
VIP Road, Port Blair,
A & N Islands- 744103. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/03/2018
CPIO replied on : 12/04/2018, 21/05/2018
First appeal filed on : 25/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 22/06/2018
Date of Hearing : 04/12/2019
Date of Decision : 04/12/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant in 5 points sought information related to standard procedure for conducting counseling of both parties in cases like promise of marriages, physical relation and divorce, etc and its standing order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: S. Kartik, Accountant & PIO, State Social Welfare Board, Port Blair, A & N Islands present through VC.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further stated that the information is pertaining to a counselling proceeding held on 03.01.2014 against him on the complaint of Ms. Kasila Devi and its related documents submitted before the Chairperson during the proceeding.
PIO submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that he will abide by the order of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Observations Commission has dealt with similar question of Law in certain earlier matters and in such cases, public authorities ordinarily rely upon Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2014) (referred as Act herein for the sake of brevity) which provides as under:
"16. Prohibition of publication or making known contents of complaint and inquiry proceedings.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner:
Provided that information may be disseminated regarding the justice secured to any victim of sexual harassment under this Act without disclosing the name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the aggrieved woman and witnesses."
It may also be noted that the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the instant matter is summarily rejected as it has been established during hearing that the Appellant was the concerned opposite party before the counseling proceedings.
2File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/140224 As it appears, Section 16 of the supra Act overrides the provisions of RTI Act to a certain extent. In this context, it may be noted that a coordinate bench of this Commission has extensively dwelled upon the question of law at hand vide its decision dated 01.07.2016 in a set of Appeal(s) registered as File Nos. CIC/YA/A/2016/000299 and CIC/YA/A/2016/000282. The observations of the coordinate bench are reproduced hereunder:
"...The limited question of law emanating from the present appeals may be formulated as follows:
Whether section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 operates as an embargo over the right of a victim/complainant of Sexual Harassment to access information relating to inquiry proceedings, recommendations of internal committee/local committee, statements of complainant/respondent and witnesses ; under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted by the Parliament to prevent harassment of women at workplace besides prescribing panel provisions for the offenders. A reference may be made to the Preamble of the aforesaid enactment to gather intent of the legislature:
An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The intent of the legislature is loud & manifest. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of any enactment are to be interpreted in a manner which furthers the cause or purpose behind its enactment. Section 16 is enacted as a safeguard measure to check further aggravation of traumatic & stigmatic experience of a victim of sexual harassment against by unwarranted disclosure of her identity.
Natural justice requires that all parties having proximate nexus with any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding or its outcome to be kept abreast. The expression 'shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner' as employed in Section 16 of the Prevention of 3 Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 operates against disclosures made to three categories only. They are public, press & media. The expression cannot be stretched to assign altogether different meaning so as to include the 'complainant' within the prohibited degree of classes, to deny information relating to proceedings under the Act. If the aforesaid contention of the CPIO & FAA is accepted, the aforesaid provision would compound the harassment of the victim rather than mitigate it.
Though, the information relating to the proceedings & findings of Internal Complaints Committee while dealing with any incidence of sexual harassment, must be voluntarily made available to the victim; however, if the same is not done, I do not find Section 16 of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 to be eclipsing the right of a complainant/victim of sexual harassment to access the same under RTI Act, 2005. Section 16 (ibid) merely eclipses the right to know of the public at large, press and media only. Thus, the legal proposition remains that, a complainant/victim of an incident of sexual harassment as per the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act can access information through the RTI Act,2005...."
The aforesaid analogy squarely applies to the case where the opposite party in such cases is seeking the relevant details under RTI Act. Even further, we note that Section 13 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 provides as under:
13. Inquiry report.--(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.
Adverting to the reasoning of the coordinate bench as referred above, in the instant case, where Appellant being the averred opposite party in the counseling proceedings is entitled for getting a copy of proceeding report of counseling discussion held between Ms. Kasila Devi and the Appellant as per Section 13(1) of the said Act, in view of which, Section 16 of the Act will not override the Appellant's right to seek this information under RTI Act.
In the instant case however, the considered opinion of this bench suggests that it will be prudent to withhold the names of witnesses, figuring in the inquiry proceedings by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. This is warranted, notwithstanding the above said proposition that Section 16 of the Act will not override Appellant's right to information in this case. This is so, in as much as 4 File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/140224 when said information is sought under RTI Act, public authorities and the Commission are well within their scope of powers to analyze the implication of disclosure of information vis-à-vis the various exemption clauses under Section 8 and/or 9 therein.
Decision In view of the totality of the circumstances, PIO is directed to provide copy of Standing Order with regard to standard procedure of counseling as sought at para 4(i)(a) of the RTI Application alongwith copy of proceedings report of averred counseling discussion sought at para 4 to the Appellant after adequately blacking out the names and any such details which lead to the identity of witnesses figuring in the relevant documents.
The aforesaid directions of the Commission shall be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be sent by the PIO to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
5