Central Information Commission
Mathew Thomas vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 31 May, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2020/135846
CIC/MH&FW/A/2020/135917
Shri Mathew Thomas ...
अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare /Respondent
Date of Hearing :25.05.2021
Date of Decision :31.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
135846 26.05.2020 - 03.09.2020 - 17.11.2020
135917 18.05.2020 - 30.06.2020 - 17.11.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MH&FW/A/2020/135846 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2020 seeking information on following points 04 points:Page 1 of 8
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2020 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission has been received from CPIO (RTI Cell) and US, D/o Health and Family Welfare, M/o Health and Family Welfare, vide letter dated 20.05.2021 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was forwarded through the Nodal Officer (RTI Cell) of their Ministry to Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha CPIO and US of their department and CPIO, ICMR on 10.07.2020. The first appeal was also transferred to the FAA and Director (IH Section) of their department; Nodal Officer, DGHS and Nodal Officer, ICMR. He also stated that the CIC notice was also forwarded to the above mentioned authorities for attending the hearing.
A reply dated 06.11.2020 sent by FAA and Dy Secretary (I.H. and I.C.), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, International Health Division is also annexed with the written submission.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that no reply was provided to him prior to the filing of the Second Appeal. The Appellant further stated that contrary to the advisories issued by the government from time to time, information was displayed on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare/DGHS stating that persons having no symptoms of COVID-19 infection should not wear face masks; that wearing scarfs and handkerchiefs as substitutes for medical masks should be avoided and repeated use of a single mask should also be avoided as it can cause more harm than benefit. Thus, he stated that correct/ accurate information should be published by the Ministry of Health of Family Welfare in the larger public interest and in compliance with Section 4 (1) (c) and (d) of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 8
The Respondents represented by Shri Rajiv Attri, DS and Nodal PIO, Ministry of Health; Shri Sonu Kumar, US, International Health/ International Cooperation Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; Dr R Lakshminarayanan, DDG (Admin), ICMR, Dr Mohit Patralekh, CMO, EMR Division DGHS participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Rajiv Attri stated that being the nodal officer of M/o Health and Family Welfare he had transferred the RTI application to the public authorities mentioned in the written submission above. Dr R Lakshminarayanan stated that since the information was not available with them, the application was transferred to the DGHS (EMR) Division. Shri Sonu Kumar stated that vide letter dated 06.11.2020, the International Health/ International Cooperation Division had informed the Appellant that his RTI application was forwarded to the DGHS (EMR) Division. On queries related to WHO, it was also informed that WHO is not a public authority as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
Dr Mohit Patralekh stated that vide letter dated 11.11.2020 point wise information was provided to the Appellant, a copy of which was provided to the Commission subsequent to the hearing. In the said reply, it was mentioned that on point a, the Appellant was seeking reasons which is beyond the purview of definition of information u/s 2 (f). On point no b, the Appellant was provided with the web link on advisory issued for use of "Homemade Protective Cover for Face and Mouth" hosted on the website of Principal Scientific Advisor to the PM and the website of M/o Health and Family Welfare. On points c and d, it was mentioned that no information is available with them.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, it is evident and obvious that very pertinent issues relating to larger public interest have been raised in his RTI application by the Appellant. As rightly pointed out by the Appellant, correct and accurate information should also be disclosed in the public domain in accordance with Section 4 (1) (c) and (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 so as to obviate the need filing an RTI application. The Commission also observes that the RTI application has been very casually handled as it has been merely transferred from one department to another and complete information is not received even after several months. The Commission takes an adverse view of the conduct of officers of the RTI Cell, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare who have simply acted as a post office and transferred the RTI application to various departments without assisting/ facilitating the information seeker with flow of information.
Merely by transferring the RTI application, it cannot be said that the transferring authority can be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities as CPIO thereafter. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is Page 3 of 8 expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, in Ministry Of Railways Through ... vs Girish Mittal on 12 September, 2014 W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."
A reference can also be made to a recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shikha Bagga Vs. Public Information Officer, Directorate of Education and Another's, in W. P. (C) 4172/2017 dated 13.07.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"4. Clearly, transferring the petitioner's application to various schools is unsustainable. The PIO is required to provide all such information as sought for, subject to the exceptions as provided under the Act
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letters/orders dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 transferring the petitioner's application to various officers and various schools are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's application be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law"
The Commission also takes note of the absurd response provided by the International Health/ International Cooperation Division, M/o Health and Family Page 4 of 8 Welfare where it is misinterpreted that queries relate to WHO, which is not a Public Authority. The Appellant has clearly sought information from M/o Health and Family Welfare regarding consideration of recommendations of WHO on wearing masks and not information about WHO.
Moreover, on the substantive issues raised in his RTI application, complete and consolidated information on use of marks (N95/ Surgical/ Handmade Masks, etc) is not provided to the Appellant. Piecemeal information regarding homemade masks was provided by the EMR, Division, DGHS which does not address all the queries in the RTI application. The Appellant has also alleged that contrary information is disclosed on website of DGHS where it is mentioned that person having no symptoms of COVID-19 infection should not wear face marks. On perusal of the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Commission finds that several SOPs have been published for spread of COVID-19 such as the following:
• 01.03.2021Guidelines on Preventive Measures to Contain Spread of COVID-19 in Yoga Institutes & Gymnasiums • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures in Hotels and other Hospitality Units to contain spread of COVID-19 • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures in Restaurants to contain spread of COVID-19 • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures in shopping malls to contain spread of COVID-19 • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures to be followed in Entertainment Parks • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures to contain spread of COVID-19 in religious places and places of worship • 01.03.2021SOP on preventive measures to contain spread of COVID-19 in skill or entrepreneurship training institutions, higher educational institutions However, clear information regarding efficacy of different types of masks, conditions in which they may be used, their benefits etc cannot be traced. Thus in the light of the above observations, the Commission modifies the queries raised by the Appellant and directs the Nodal CPIO, RTI, M/o Health and Family Welfare to provide correct and accurate information, as available, on the aforementioned point after obtaining the same from the concerned PIOs as also suo motu disclose the same on the website of the public authority in accordance with Section 4 (1) (c) and (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Considering the larger public interest involved and the urgency in disclosure of such information, the Commission directs that the above mentioned direction should be complied with by 15.06.2021 under intimation to the Commission.Page 5 of 8
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/MH&FW/A/2020/135917 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2020 seeking information on following points 05 points:
As per Section 4(1)(c) and (d) of RTI Act publish all relevent facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions which affect public and provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
a. Please give government's reasons for lockdown of economic and social activity from 24.03.2020.
b. Copy of any document containing expert opinions of immunologists, epidemiologists or virologists recommending lockdown as a way of preventing spread of corona virus.
c. Copy of any document giving views of experts, as mentioned above, for making wearing of marks compulsory. [I have attached a document giving the World Health Organization's view that there is no evidence for or against use of masks (medical or other) and recommendations of only four (4) categories of persons who are to use masks.] d. Copy of any documents showing that the government took into consideration the damage to the economy and the livelihoods of millions of people by locking down all economic and social activity BEFORE the decision to lockdown was made.
e. Copy of any document showing that the Ministry of Family Health and Welfare brought to the notice of the Prime-minister the facts in sub-paragraphs a. b. and c. above.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2020 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO (RTI Cell) and US, D/o Health and Family Welfare, M/o Health and Family Welfare, vide letter dated 20.05.2021 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was forwarded through the Nodal Officer (RTI Cell) of their ministry to the CPIO and Nodal Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs; CPIO, ICMR; CPIO, NCDC and CPIO, Ministry of Finance (D/o Economic Affairs) on 04.06.2020. The First Appeal was also forwarded to the Nodal Officer, ICMR; Ministry of Home Affairs; NCDC and D/o Economic Affairs on 21.09.2020. He also stated that the CIC notice was also forwarded to the above mentioned authorities for attending the hearing. A reply dated 03.11.2020 sent by the CPIO, Page 6 of 8 NDMC giving information on point b of the RTI application was enclosed with the written submission.
A reply dated 04.11.2020 was sent by Dr Nivedita Gupta, Scientist-F for Director General, ICMR wherein it was mentioned that the requested information is not available with ICMR.
A written submission has also been received from the CPIO and Dy Secretary (Admin), MHA vide letter dated 24.05.2021 wherein it was stated that the Central Registry Section of their Ministry vide letter dated 23.10.2020 informed that the RTI application dated 18.05.2020 was not received by them. Subsequently, against the first appeal as well, the RTI Section vide letter dated 26.10.2020 informed the same to the Appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that no reply was provided to him prior to the filing of the Second Appeal. He referred to the reply of the National Centre for Disease Control dated 04.11.2020 received by him after filing the Second Appeal and stated that the same was based on a study of the Imperial College London, COVID-19 response team which was later found to be incorrect. He also referred to points d and e of the RTI application and stated that the same should have been answered by the concerned public authority.
The Respondents represented by Dr R Lakshminarayanan, DDG (Admin), ICMR, Dr Mohit Patralekh, CMO, DGHS and Dr Arti Bahl, Jt Director, National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), Delhi participated in the hearing through audio conference. Dr Bahl stated that although the query raised by the Appellant in point no 2 required research and collation which is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005, the then CPIO had provided to the Appellant the relevant extract of the research of World Economic Forum Covid Action Platform regarding lockdown as a way to preventing spread of corona virus.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties the Commission is of the view that a suitable reply on point no b of the RTI application has been provided to the Appellant. The Commission also finds that on point no a, the Appellant is seeking government's reasons for lockdown of economic and social activity from 24.03.2020 which is a very generic and vague query not falling within the definition of information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Regarding point no c, the query is similar to the ones which are raised in the RTI application under consideration in CIC/MH&FW/A/2020/135846 addressed above, hence no specific direction is required for the same. With regard to point no d, the Commission observes that same is also vague and should have been addressed to the appropriate public authority. It is also noted that query e requires deduction/ analysis/ interpretation of the PIO which is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 7 of 8
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 of 8