Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Women & Child Development on 10 November, 2022
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 : CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/686745+
CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/688668
Naresh Kadyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Ministry of Women and Child
Development, RTI Cell, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Rahtriya Mahila Kosh,
Ministry of Women and Child
Development, RTI Cell, B-12,
4th Floor, Qutub Institutional
Area, New Delhi-110016 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 07/11/2022
Date of Decision : 07/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned appeals have been clubbed together for the sake
of brevity and decision as these are based on similar RTI Application(s).
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s):
RTI application(s) filed on : 09/07/2020 & 14/07/2020
CPIO replied on : 17/09/2020
1
First appeal(s) filed on : 09/08/2020 & 14/08/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record & N.A.
2nd Appeal(s)/Complaint dated : NIL
CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/686745
CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/688668
Information sought:
The Appellant filed online RTI application(s) dated 09.07.2020 & 14.07.2020 seeking the following information:
"Smt. Maneka Gandhi, being public servant as Member of Parliament, seems to be habitual of abusing power & Authorities, I hereby confirmed as I had been very close Associates with her, due to difference between opinion along with her abusive behaviors, I disassociate myself with her activities. On Friday - Saturday midnight (12-13 June, 2020), she admitted on mobile that on her instructions, two female Elephants of Great Golden Circus were loaded in a goods transport vehicle bearing No. GJ37 T 9758 for Radha Krishana Temple Trust, based at Jamnagar in Gujarat, said vehicles were stopped by Police, handed over to the Forest Department, with in jurisdiction of Rajkot, her audio recording in my custody, dully shared with all concerned. In past, she submitted false statement before Central Zoo Authority, on behalf of PFA & obtained public funds as grant in aid, which were recovered with interest, on my complaint, whereas 250 captive Monkeys were left abandoned by her to die, threat to public life & property. Prani Mitra Award, 1996 also obtain by her as Minister in Charge of Animal Welfare, abusive her power. Under RTI Act, 2005, please reply as Speaker of Lok Sabha:
1. Supply me all the copies of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Rules & Regulations to carry two elephants in a goods transport vehicles.
2. Supply me all the copies of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Rules & Regulations to carry 100 Camels of Border Security Force, in a goods transport vehicles.
3. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, term wise of Membership of Lok Sabha, define period along with sessions she attended, list of private bills she introduced in Lok Sabha, since 9th Lok Sabha on wards till date.2
4. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, term wise of Membership of Lok Sabha, pay & perks with other facilities she obtained & enjoyed, since 9th Lok Sabha on wards till date.
5. Supply me complete details, related to Smt. Maneka Gandhi, confirming her as public servant, accountable to all voters of her Parliamentary Constituency along with her power & duties allowing two female elephants loading in goods transport vehicles.
6. Smt. Gauri Mulekhi & Anand Chaudhary, had been companion of her as Union Cabinet Minister, Women and Child Development, supply me copies of appointment letters in the Ministry along with complete details about pay, perks & other facilities, incentives, both were paid by the Ministry
7. On wards 13-9-2019, Smt. Maneka Gandhi, being Member, Consultative Committee, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, supply me copies of her letters, Notes & all communications as Member, Consultative Committee, Ministry of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries.
8. Indian Forest Services, Conservator of Forest at Rajkot granted permission to transport vehicle bearing No. GJ37 T 9758, loaded two Elephants, supply me copies along with CCF eligibility to grant such permission."
The CPIO furnished a reply and also transferred the RTI on 17.09.2020 stating as under -
"2. It is stated that the requisite information sought by you with regard to Point No.1-5 and 7-8 is not available under the jurisdiction of the CPIO, Personnel Administration. Hence, it may be treated as Nil.
3. With regard to Point No. 6 of the application, it is stated that the information for appointment of Smt. Gauri Mulekhi in the office of the then Hon'ble Minister, WCD (Smt. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi) is not available under the jurisdiction of the CPIO, Personnel Administration. Hence, it may be treated as Nil. However, the same is being transferred to all autonomous/attached/statutory bodies under the administrative control of MWCD under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information, if any, directly you.
6. Regarding Shri Anand Lai Chaudhary, it is stated that he was initially appointed as Additional Private Secretary in the personal staff of the then Hon'ble Minister, WCD (Smt. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi) on co-terminus basis. Subsequently, he was appointed as OSD to the then Hon'ble Minister vide this Ministry's orders dated 23.09.2014 and 22.10,2014 (copies enclosed). For details about pay, perks & other facilities, incentives paid to Shri Chaudhary by this Ministry, may be available with 3 Cash Section in this Ministry. Therefore, your application is being, transferred to CPIO dealing with Cash Section in MWCD under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information, if any, directly to you."
CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/688668 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Subsequently, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.10.2020 against points No. 1 to 5, 7 & 8 of the RTI application and with regard to point No. 6, the information was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent no. 1: Sudesh Kumar, U.S. (Personnel Admn.) & CPIO along with Santanu U.S. (PERS Admn.) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Sunil Kumar Garg, Rep. of CPIO present through intra- video conference.
In case no. CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/686745 -
The Respondent no. 1 reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 05.11.2022 relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -
" ....2. It is submitted that part information for Point No. (vi) of above said RTI application as well as RTI first appeal pertaining to Shri Anand Lal Choudhary was concerned to the then CPIO/FAA (Personnel Administration, Proper Secretariat) in Ministry of Women and Child Development, which was provided vide letter dated 17.09.2020 to Shri Naresh Kadyan (copy enclosed). The RTI application for the other part of Point No. (vi), was transferred to CPIO 4 of Cash Section, MWCD and CPIOs of Autonomous bodies of the MWCD for providing requisite information if any, directly to the applicant.
3. In this regard, it is stated that due to lack of sufficient manpower in personnel administration during Covid-19 pandemic, the reply to the applicant could not be sent within the stipulated time line. The delay in disposing of the RTI application by the then CPIO, due to restrictions on account of Covid-19 appropriate behaviour, is regretted....."
In case no. CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/688668 -
The Respondent no. 2 also reiterated the contents of their written submission dated 30.10.2022 relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -
"
"
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application(s) that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to 5 Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also the fact remains that it also contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
His attention is also 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 was held as under:
"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], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get 6 copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"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.
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) Further, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 7 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the replies provided by the CPIOs' are in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the foregoing and also considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to buttress his case, the Commission finds no scope of further action in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIOs' is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."8
In view of the above said point, the CPIOs/Respondents are hereby directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 05.11.2022 and 30.10.2022 free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 9