Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 9 March, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/LICOI/C/2019/643989
Samir Sardana ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 22-05-2019 FA : 26-06-2019 Complaint: 27-06-2019
CPIO : 17-06-2019 FAO : 25.07.2019 Hearing: 26-02-2021
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai, seeking information on various points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) PIO to confirm the investments wherein the LIC has Nominee Directors - name and amount, alongwith the names of the Nominees Directors of LIC of the said investment, as at March 31, 2019;
(ii) PIO to provide the financial performance of the said investments (for each investment),as of March 31,2018;
(iii) PIO to provide the number of meetings attended by each of the LIC Nominee Directors in each of the said infrastructure and social sector investments in the FY 2019 Discontinued Funds;
(iv) PIO to provide the aggregate amount transferred by the LIC to the Discontinued Funds account in the last 7 years, year by year, etc. Page 1 of 8
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri G S Wanwar, CPIO attended the hearing through video- conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent public authority on his RTI application dated 22.05.2019. The complainant stated that the respondent has wrongly denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(e), 7(9), etc. of the RTI Act. The complainant stated that he is entitled to get complete information under the RTI Act. The complainant stated that the information sought by him is in larger public interest and can be disclosed under the RTI Act. The complainant reiterated that complete information should be provided to him.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their reply dated 17.06.2019, they have informed the complainant that his RTI application is quite voluminous running into several pages each containing several lengthy queries seeking information on various diverse issues. Such RTI applications tend to disproportionately divert the resources of the department and information on the same is denied under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information will have to be created by 2048 branches of LIC spread all over India and then it will have to be collected and collated and compiled by the Central Office merely to reply to the RTI queries. Further, applicant has sought information in the form of questions/assertions/opinions which does not constitute information within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that the RTI application of the complainant contains more than 500 words but still they have tried to provide the point-wise reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application. The reply of the CPIO and FAA are seen during the hearing.
Decision:
7. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant contested that there is a malafide intention on the part of the respondent public authority in obstructing the information. On the other hand, Page 2 of 8 the respondent contended that there was no malafide intention in denying the information. The respondent submitted that they have informed the complainant that his RTI application contains more than 500 words and as per Section 3 of the RTI Rules 2012 dated 31.07.2012 which states as "An application under sub- section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 10 and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the CPIO and that of the applicant: Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words". The respondent stated that still they have tried to furnish point- wise reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application and given certain information to him.
8. The Commission further observed that the complainant has filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act and the Commission, at this stage, cannot convert it as a second appeal and cannot direct the respondent to provide information at the stage of adjudicating the complaint. The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipura & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held that "the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable.
9. The Commission, after examining the RTI application of the complainant, has observed that some queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO on different subject-matters and the queries are non-specific and general in nature. But the CPIO is not supposed to Page 3 of 8 create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
10. The Commission further observed that the complainant has sought voluminous information related to the functioning of the respondent public authority. The information sought is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds it pertinent to bring to the notice of the complainant that even though he in his RTI application had stated that the matter is of vital importance and in Public Interest and should be in the public domain. All this exercise on the part of the complainant, particularly keeping in view the number of queries raised in every one of his RTI application and counter submissions, negates the very purpose of RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with such cumbersome and implausible RTI applications. Providing a reply to the RTI applications is a duty of the CPIO, not the only duty that has to be performed by the CPIOs. The information sought by an applicant has to be balanced with the fact that the same act should not cause drainage of limited resources and the manpower of any authority, which will be unfair to them.
11. Moreover, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed Page 4 of 8 to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
12. The Commission further observed that the respondent in this case, has made every possible effort to provide replies and available information to the complainant and hence, the Commission does find any scope for interference in the matter. Further, no malafide was observed on the part of the respondent public authority in denying/obstructing the information. The Commission further observed that the FAA in one of the query has responded to the complainant to refer to the Annual Report which is available on their website but the respondent public authority has not given specific web-link and page number where the complainant can access the information. In view of this, the Commission advised the respondent that if any information is available in public domain then specific web-link in this regard should be provided to the RTI applicants for their ease. Further, if any information is available in compiled form then the same should also be provided to the RTI applicants without disclosing the information of commercial confidence and personal information.
Page 5 of 813. With respect to imposition of penalty on the CPIO, therefore, with regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01.06.2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled as Registrar of Companies &Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg&Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner Page 3 of 4 in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC &Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders Page 6 of 8 of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to theCentral Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
14. In light of the factual matrix of the complaint and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that there is no malafide denial of information. In view of this, no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.
15. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
16. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
िदनां क / Date: 26-02-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682)
Page 7 of 8
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office, 5th Floor, West Wing
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg
PB. No. 19953, Mumbai-400021
2. Samir Sardana
Page 8 of 8