Central Information Commission
Chandana Das vs Ministry Of Defence on 2 December, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File Nos. CIC/VS/A/2015/001688/SD +
CIC/VS/A/2015/003128/SD + CIC/VS/A/2015/002973/SD +
CIC/VS/A/2015/002964/SD + CIC/VS/A/2015/002734/SD +
CIC/VS/A/2015/003016/SD + CIC/VS/A/2015/002082/SD +
CIC/VS/A/2015/002951/SD + CIC/VS/A/2015/001588/SD +
CIC/CC/A/2015/004233/SD + CIC/CC/A/2015/004067/SD +
CIC/VS/A/2015/002836/SD + CIC/CC/A/2015/004068/SD
Date of Hearing(s): 11/11/2016;17/11/2016;21/11/2016
Date of Decision: 29/11/2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal(s):
Appellant No. 1 : Chandana Das
C/o Dr. Nityananda Das
PAR Div, IGFRI
Gwalior Road
Jhansi (UP) - 284003
Appellant No. 2 : Nityananda Das
PAR Division, IGFRI
Gwalior Road
Jhansi (UP) - 284003
Respondent : CPIO
RTI Cell, ADG AE Room No. G - 6 D - 1 Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi - 110011 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA The instant Appeals and Complaints arise out of RTI Applications seeking information on the same subject matter i.e pertaining to the death of the Appellant(s) son Late Capt. Saswata Das being not categorised as 'Battle Casualty' and grant of ex-gratia lump sum as well as liberalized special family pension. Hence, it has been decided to adjudicate on these through a common order.
1 Seria CIC File Reference Date of Date of Date Date Date of RTI l No. Second FAA of of Application Appeal Order First CPIO Appea reply l 1. CIC/CC/A/2015/004233/SD 13/05/ 17/02/ 31/12 10/12 29/10/2014 2015 2015 /2014 /2014 2. CIC/CC/A/2015/004067/SD 22/05/ 27/03/ 17/03 09/01 23/12/2014 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 & 04/02 /2015 3. CIC/VS/A/2015/001688/SD 20/06/ 27/03/ 16/03 18/02 14/01/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 4. CIC/VS/A/2015/001588/SD 18/06/ 25/03/ 19/03 11/03 17/01/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 5. CIC/VS/A/2015/002082/SD 19/06/ No 04/04 31/03 19/01/2015 2015 order /2015 /2015 6. CIC/VS/A/2015/003128/SD 14/08/ 15/07/ 09/06 29/05 20/04/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 7. CIC/VS/A/2015/002734/SD 21/09/ No 09/07 20/05 08/05/2015 2015 order /2015 /2015 8. CIC/VS/A/2015/002973/SD 16/09/ 31/07/ 03/07 23/06 03/06/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 9. CIC/VS/A/2015/002964/SD 10/11/ 31/07/ 04/07 23/06 04/06/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 10. CIC/VS/A/2015/002951/SD 14/10/ No 21/08 06/08 10/06/2015 2015 order /2015 /2015 11. CIC/VS/A/2015/002836/SD 08/10/ 03/08/ 25/07 13/08 11/06/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 12. CIC/VS/A/2015/003016/SD 12/11/ 26/08/ 24/07 08/07 17/06/2015 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 13. CIC/CC/A/2015/004068/SD 23/05/ 16/02/ 06/02 09/02 31/12/2014 2015 2015 /2015 /2015 2 Serial Brief of Information Sought No. (Corresponding to Serial Nos. of cases listed above)
1. The Appellant sought information for the period between 10.09.2009 and 10.10.2014 regarding the total number of cases received for processing of Ex- Gratia lump sum payment by IHQ MoD, number of cases that were recommended by the Ministry of Defence for Ex-Gratia lump sum payment & number of cases that were not recommended for Ex-Gratia lump sum payment.
2. The Appellant sought information whether situations at Line of Control formation in OPERATION RAKSHAK, J & K is similar to that of War situations as mentioned in a MoD letter dated 31.01.2001 and whether working in such situation is considered Actual Field Operations as mentioned in the Pension Regulation for the Army, Part-1, 2008.
3. The Appellant sought information regarding CGDA circular No. 5613/AT -
V/XXIX dated 16.09/2014 such as date when it was forwarded to both the AG/PS-5 and the AAG MP 5(b), details of action taken by both of them, total no. of cases for granting ex-gratia lump sum compensation to the Next of Kin were processed so far, on the basis of this circular.
4. The Appellant sought the date of receipt of Report no. PC - 68336Y/SD/01/Sigs dated 14.09.2009 in Sena Bhawan, copy of this report and file noting related to examination of this report.
5. The Appellant sought information about documents/noting(s)/files regarding inclusion of cases where death occurs due to medical condition with special reference to her deceased son Late Capt. Saswata Das not being declared battle casualty.
6. The Appellant sought to know the designation of officers in MoD who decided the cause of death of her son, documents upon which they relied to decide the same and copy of noting(s) where it is decided that cause of death was 'cardio respiratory arrest anaphylactic shock with multiple organ failure'.
7. The Appellant sought regarding date of receipt of her appeal dated 07.12.2014, details of action taken by the competent authority on the appeal alongwith copies of file noting(s) and correspondences made therein.
38. The Appellant sought certified copy of the relevant government order for Liberalized Dependent Family Pension for the Armed Forces Officers while deciding the case in respect of her son, and relevant circular/regulation wherein it is mentioned that only next of kin of Battle Casualty are entitled for the same.
9. The Appellant sought certified copies of valid documents examined while deciding the casualty classification of her son in accordance with AO 1/2003/MP and relevant government orders which empowers IHQ of MoD and not the Commanding officer of 28 Infantry Division Signal Regiment, GOC HQ 15 Corps to decide the casualty classification.
10. The Appellant sought copy of existing rules on which basis casualty of her deceased son was classified as physical casualty, what is the specific category in which her sons physical casualty falls, date when the process for amending the casualty status of her son has been initiated based on the recent amendment of his posting status from 'Peace' to 'Field'.
11. The Appellant sought certified copy of documents which were used by MoD to ascertain that Operation Rakshak is a specifically notified operation by the Government and that it is eligible to be covered under 4.1 Category "E". She also sought the name of documents which are used by MoD to ascertain the duty status of deceased Army personnel.
12. The Appellant Sought certified copies of file noting(s) on examination of the issue of declaring her son as a Battle Casualty vide letter no. 12812AG/IC- 68336Y/MP(D), dated 05.01.2015, order, circular, existing rules etc. relied on for the said examination.
13. The Appellant sought certain information through 4 points probing a reply of the CPIO (dated 08.12.2014) to one of his previous RTI application (dated 19.11.2014).
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.4
Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing on 11.11.2016, 17.11.2016 and 21.11.2016:
The following were present:-
Appellant No.1: Represented by her husband Mr. Nityananda Das present through VC on hearings of 11.11.2016 & 17.11.2016 Appellant No.2: Present through VC for the hearing on 21.11.2016 Respondent present on 11.11.2016: Col R. Balaji, CPIO, Lt. Col. S.K. Sharma and Asha Manoj, DD, IHQ of MoD (Army) present in person.
Respondent present on 17.11.2016: Maj. R.N. Sharma, CPIO, Lt. Col. S. Thapliyal, MP 5 & 6 and Ms Asha Manoj, DD, AG/PS4 Imp-1, IHQ of MoD(Army) present in person Respondent present on 21.11.2016: Lt Col. Rajiv Guleria, CPIO, IHQ of MoD(Army) present in person.
Appellant No. 2 represented Appellant No. 1 in all matters listed at serial nos. (1) to (12) above and stated during the hearing on 11.11.2016 that Appellant No. 1 had filed Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act which have been registered as Appeals under Section 19 of the RTI Act vide File Nos.
CIC/VS/A/2015/002973/SD, CIC/VS/A/2015/002964/SD , CIC/VS/A/2015/002734/SD , CIC/VS/A/2015/003016/SD. Accordingly, the Commission is hereby treating the said Appeals as Complaints.
Further, in the hearing on 21.11.2016 of the matter listed at serial no. (13) above Appellant No. 2 stated that he had filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act which has been registered as Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act vide File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/004068/SD. Accordingly the same is also treated as a Complaint.
The Appellant(s) basic contention for all the matters is reproduced as under:
5 They are dissatisfied with the information received or having not received information at all on some RTI Applications after repeated transfer of the same between concerned authorities.
They have not been given point-wise replies.
They are not content with the inspection offered to them and are rather not inclined in availing any more inspection opportunities.
They argue that the CPIO does not have the power to provide inspection on his own accord and that CPIO has powers only as enlisted in Section 7 & 8 of the RTI Act.
Further, they also contend that Section 2(f) is not the appropriate section to deny information.
CPIO is wrong in interpreting information sought regarding the attributes of Physical Casualty as being similar to queries regarding Battle Casualty.
CPIO is deliberately hiding information, not providing the information and they also questioned the motive of the pubic authority.
They are aggrieved with the change of status of their son's posting from field to peace area.
That they seek specific information regarding the classification of insect bite as a category for determining Physical casualty.
Respondent(s) submission:
The background of the issue in brief was explained that the Appellant's son died of an insect/wasp bite, and that this apparently happened when he was delivering a lecture while serving in J&K. To answer the issue of changing the status of the posting of their son from field to peace, it was clarified that J&K is not entirely a field posting, it has both Peace and Field areas, hence the Appellant's contention is unfounded. Further, the difference between Battle Casualty and Physical Casualty was spelt out and clarified that insect bite has not been specifically enlisted in the circumstances leading to classification into any category of the aforesaid casualties and that their son's death has been classified only as per Army Order, 2001. Furthermore, it was stated that the 6 Appellant's primary objective is grant of liberalised family pension, while out of compassion Special Family Pension was granted to them and ex-gratia lump sum has although been sanctioned by AGPS, the same was objected/rejected by PCDA. It was also mentioned that factually the Appellant(s) as parents of the deceased are not even eligible for special family pension.
Respondents strongly raised the issue of the multiplicity of applications filed by the Appellant(s) which they say has caused immense stress and harassment to the CPIO office as the resources of the public authority are being continuously diverted into furnishing information/replies to the Appellant(s) on the same subject matter and in fact mostly same queries asked in different ways and even generating new queries from CPIO's earlier replies. As on date more than 300 RTI Applications have been filed with them on the same matter, at this stage the number is clarified during the hearing by the Appellant as 400.
Respondents furthermore submitted that due opportunity of inspection has been offered to the Appellant multiple times (in compliance of CIC orders also) wherein owing to Appellant No.2's grievance of having to visit different locations for assimilating records, a room was booked wherein all of the files/records were put together for inspection. He also presented before the Commission an inspection report of the inspection provided in compliance of a previous CIC order clubbed for 18 Second Appeals, wherein the Appellant No.2 has himself recorded his remarks on 19.10.2016 stating that he has received full cooperation from RTI Cell, PS-4(Imp-1) and M.P.5 (b) AG and that they have provided information on each of the query that pertained to them.
Decision At the outset, Commission deems it appropriate to quote all the previous orders that have been passed in the Appellant(s) regard in the past, purpose being to highlight the practice undertaken by the public authority as well as the Commission to address the same subject matter repeatedly.
A cumulative set of Appeals and Complaints filed vide File Nos. CIC/RM/A/2014/000217,000440,000448,000449,000591,000700,000770,0010 05,001008,001341,001430,003846,003852,004417,004536,004539,004634,00 4638,CIC/CC/A/2014/000074,000197,000946,000984,001206,001570,001624, 7 001935,002591,002761,CIC/CC/A/15/003444,003575,004133,CIC/RM/C/13/00 0557,CIC/RM/C/2014/000126,000141,CIC/CC/C/2014/000068,000157,000202, 000206,CIC/CC/C/15/000098,000238,000244,000245,000314,000389,000408 (48 cases) decided by the Commission on 16.11.2015 wherein the Respondent's submissions were recorded in line with what has been submitted in the present matters and inspection of relevant files was ordered.
Similarly, Commission has adjudicated vide order nos. CIC/LS/A/2013/001524/RM dated 13.03.2014, CIC/LS/A/2013/000503 dated 13.03.2013, CIC/LS/A/2013/000746 dated 06.05.2013, CIC/LS/A/2013/001042 dated 09.07.2013, CIC/LS/A/2013/001134 dated 31.07.2013, CIC/LS/A/2013/001600/RM dated 24.03.2014, CIC/LS/A/2013/001574/RM dated 24.03.2014, CIC/SS/A/2013/002352/RM dated 23.04.2014, CIC/SS/A/2013/002327/RM dated 23.04.2014, CIC/SS/A/2013/002961/RM dated 12.05.2014 with regard to the same subject matter filed by Appellant No.2.
Then, again in another matter no. CIC/RM/A/2014/001748/SD filed by Appellant No.1, Commission observed that:
"....information sought in the RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. Commission advises the appellant not to misuse the provisions of the RTI Act. Such conduct on part of appellant result in public losing faith and confidence in this 'Sunshine Act.' A beneficial statute should be utilised in a positive manner so that disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority does not take place in trying to reply to multiple RTI applications on similar contents."
A more recent order passed on 09.09.2016 in the matter no. CIC/RM/A/2014/004554/SD filed by Appellant No.1, it was observed that:
".......The Appellant appears to be filing RTI Applications in the garb of her grievance that the demise of their son, Late Capt. Saswata Das, was not classified as "Battle casualty". It is also prima facie evident that no amount of information will satisfy the requirement of the Appellant. A perusal of the Commission's prior orders in the regard largely speaks of the frivolous nature of the RTI Applications and Second Appeals filed by the Appellant and her husband. In the present matter it has also been observed that some of the queries of this RTI Application are in substance a repetition of a prior RTI Application dated 24.08.2013. Even so, CPIO has offered inspection of records."8
In view of the aforesaid observation(s) in various orders of the Commission concerning the same issue, Commission strongly denounces the approach of the Appellant(s) in misusing the channel of RTI Act. The Appellants appear to be doing so despite the express knowledge of the fact that they are pursuing a matter of no larger public interest, rather concerning only their personal grievance. It is appalling to note that the public authority is being unabashedly harassed by filing umpteen vexatious RTI Applications, all in the name of grant of ex-gratia lump sum and other fiscal benefits alleged to be accruing from the death of their son. A simple perusal of the queries raised in each of the RTI Applications (reproduced herein above) shows the mundane nature of information sought and even vindictive queries based in the context of different CPIO replies. It is not clear as to what kind of information will satisfy the Appellant(s) as it appears the only relief they are aiming to secure is compelling the concerned authorities to categorise their son's death as 'Battle Casualty' and accordingly release all fiscal benefits. Further, the Appellant(s) questioning the motive of the Respondent in not providing them the information as desired is rather insinuating. In view of the fact that the Appellant(s) have been offered adequate inspection of all the relevant records, it is a far stretched imagination that the Respondent is going to gain anything out of not classifying their son's death as a 'Battle Casualty'.
The larger issue then here is the repetitive nature of these RTI Applications and the motivated attempt at putting the public authority as well as the Commission to test. To highlight this larger issue, it is imperative to refer to certain observations of the Commission in this regard. Some of these being:
File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA decided on 25.06.2014 ".....Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request can be denied. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are:
'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexari pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause).9
If presumed that the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions are statutorily compelled to entertain the repeated RTI applications, information litigation and woes of public authorities would never end. An Appeal, as provided by law is legal, because it is a legal opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Engaging with the application which is same or slightly modified request for information which was responded earlier will be certainly against the principles of natural justice both procedural and substantive, as far as right to information is concerned."
".....The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority, and based on the responses file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIOs go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing."
File No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00374 & 375 decided on 28.08.2006 "....the nature of queries and the information sought are such that the information seeker would never be satisfied because the promotion of self interest, rather than public interest, was dominant, as the appellant had sought redressal of grievances."
File Nos.
CIC/SG/C/2011/000760,CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG,CIC/SM/A/2011/0 01111/SG,CIC/SG/A/201 1/002909 decided on 17.10.2012 "....The Commission, at several appellate hearings, has explained to the complainant that under RTI Act, only the information as per records can be made available; multiple RTI applications and appeals would not provide him any information beyond the records that exists. The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondentpublic authority as well as the Commission is being spent in merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information. .... At this juncture the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual. In the present matter, it must be noted that the Complainant is pursuing multiple litigation and various public authorities are being asked to divert an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of resources just to respond to hundreds of RTI 10 applications filed by him. ...The Commission is also conscious of the fact that it is financed by the poorest man in this country who may be starving to death. The complainant by repeatedly filing similar RTI applications and appeals with the respondent public authority and the Commission, is wasting public resources"
The foregoing stance can be more so exemplified in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 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 a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
11"39. 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 Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education ( North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
A more cogent rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still."
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
Commission believes it will suffice to say, a composite reading of the preceding paragraphs lends only one conclusion that the present Appeals and Complaints are devoid of any merit as the same issue has been dealt by it in a multitude of cases. Similarly, the public authority has also spent considerable time and resources in responding to the RTI Applications. Moreover, it is deemed 12 appropriate that the Commission as well as the public authority are at liberty to take recourse to the rationale of this order whenever the same subject matter is raised by the Appellant(s) in any of their future RTI Applications and/or Appeals. The CPIO's submission of offering appropriate inspection is also upheld by the Commission. The Appellant(s) are further advised to not cause a mockery of the spirit of the RTI Act by unnecessarily flooding the public authority with RTI Applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. It is abundantly made clear that any number of RTI Applications on the same issue will not alter the information that was held and parted with by the Respondents.
With these observations, the Appeal(s) and Complaint(s) are dismissed.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 13