Central Information Commission
Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 6 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC/PB/A/2008/1221
February 6th , 2009
Name of the Appellant: Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik
Public Authority: Dy. Secretary & CPIO
Sangeet Natak Akademi
Background of the case
1. The RTI request was filed on 19.05.2008 by the Appellant herein invoking provisions of the RTI Act 2005 seeking information on a detailed questionnaire. The Appellant being assigned a research study with the objective of studying and critically assess the role of Central Sangeet Natak Akademi as a nodal autonomous Central Government agency in promoting, propagating and disseminating the diversity of India's cultural expressions. The Appellant in their various questions totaling 135 in number sought information on varied topics as detailed hereunder:
i. the registration of the Sangeet Natak Akademi[hereinafter referred to as "Akademi"] as a Society;
ii. copy of its Memorandum of Association & Rules & Regulations, amendment [if at all] thereof;
iii. field-wise and year-wise various activities for promotion, encouragement and development of dance, drama, literature, & music;
iv. research activity, if any, in the field of Indian music, dance and drama;
v. details, if any, of the collaborations and coordination, if any, with other similar institutes;
vi. details of any theatre centre established on the basis of regional language, by the Akademi;
vii. details of any institution providing training in the art of theatre, set up by the Akademi;
viii. details of activities, if any, undertaken by the Akademi for promotion of open-air theatre, children theatre, amateur dramatic activity as also for folk music, folk dance, folk drama; ix. highlights of the music, dance and drama festivals and the various seminars and conferences organized and funded by the Akademi;
x. eminent practitioners of music, dance & theatre who have been conferred fellowship by the Akademi [Akademi Ratna] and awards from the Akademi [Akademi Puraskar] and the guidelines for election of candidates for such fellowship/awards; xi. original cash and other components of such fellowship/awards of the Akademi, whether the same was enhanced and details of enhancement, if at all;
xii. details regarding the scholarships conferred by the Akademi, guidelines thereof, the cash and other components of such scholarships, whether the same were revised, if at all; Various information pertaining to the review/ assessment/ evaluation of the structural, functional and schematic settings and patterns of the Akademi, as a parent body and its Constituent Units as well as the regional State Academies of music, dance and drama functioning under the supervision of the Akademi were also sought by the Appellant. The Appellant in his RTI request also sought information about the major constraints being faced by the Akademi, its Constituent Units and the regional State Academies referred hereinbefore. The details, if any, of the suggestion received by the Akademi for further democratization of its General Council and its Executive Board; action taken thereupon, reasons for not having acted thereupon were also among the information sought by the Appellant. The questionnaire further sought information on details, if any, of suggestions received for improving the programme of Akademi Ratna, Akademi Puraskar and of the scholarships, action taken on such suggestion and reasons for not taking action in each of the cases. The financial outlays and financial achievements and physical achievements of the Akademi under the 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) & first year (2007-2008) of the 11th Five Year Plan and also the plans/proposals/programmes and policies outlined by the Akademi for the Eleventh Five Year Plan, qualitative and quantitative difference and advantage of the new plans/policies/proposals/programmes, if at all, from/over the Tenth Five Year Plan etc were some of the other information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application.
2. The said application was addressed by the appellant to the Ministry of Culture. Since the information related to the Akademi, the said application was forwarded by the Ministry and vide letter dated 02.07.2008 the Ministry requested the CPIO of the Akademi to furnish the necessary information. The records of the case indicate that the Appellant exchanged further communication vide letters dated 17.06.2008, 17.07.2008 & 24.07.2008 with the Ministry as also with the Akademi seeking response to their unanswered RTI application. The CPIO of the Akademi in his reply dated 05.08.2008 denied to furnish any information reasoning that "...RTI Act 2005 does not confer the right to an organization to obtain such voluminious information for the purpose of research study etc..."
3. The Appellant, who had already filed an appeal dated 29.07.2008 before the Ministry, followed up by filing yet another appeal dated 06.08.2008 before the Ministry of Culture, being aggrieved by such denial and obstruction in furnishing of information within specified time by the Akademi.
4. The Appellant filed an appeal before CIC on 22.08.2008 on not having received any response from the Appellate Authority, coupled with the denial of information by the CPIO of the Akademi. The Appellant submitted in his appeal that she was aggrieved at the refusal of access to any information by the CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi and at not having received any response to the RTI request within the time limit as specified under the Act by the CPIO, [SNA]. It was further contended by the appellant that while rejecting the RTI request on the ground that voluminous information had been sought, the CPIO had not bothered to provide even a single piece of information. The Appellant, in the appeal, further stated that the RTI application had to be filed in order to seek the said information because the Sangeet Natak Akademi, having provided measly and scanty information on its website, had failed to publish/disclose the detailed information as clearly stipulated by the Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, even on this ground, the Appellant states that the Akademi had violated the provisions of the Section 4 (1) (b) RTI Act 2005.
5. The Commission vide its communication dated 14.11.2008 and 20.12.2008 sent notices for hearing seeking the presence of the concerned CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi and also the Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture.
6. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 6th, 2009 and the parties were intimated accordingly vide communication dated 20.12.2008. The Appellant had filed four separate RTI Applications in this issue and one complaint for non-compliance. Accordingly on the denial of information on all of them, four separate Appeals being Nos.
CIC/PB/A/2008/01221, CIC/PB/A/2008/01222, CIC/PB/C/2008/972/AD & CIC/PB/A/2008/01354/AD had been filed before the CIC. The Respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2009 communicated to the CIC that since the CPIO, Akademi had met with an accident; adjournment was sought by the Respondent Public Authority alongwith the request for clubbing the hearings of all the four appeals on a single day. Hence the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, rescheduled the hearing for 6th February 2009 at 10.30 am.
7. The Respondent Public Authority, vide communication dated 05.02.2009 sent their submissions/reply to the appeals filed by the Appellant. In their submissions the Respondent stated that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture had taken strong exception to the decision of the Planning Commission in assigning the research project on the Akademi without consulting the concerned Ministry (Culture) or even the Akademi raising the basic issue of integrity and capacity of the Appellant's NGO to conduct such a study. While rejecting the RTI request of the Appellant herein, the Respondents submitted their reservations on the facts that a) the Appellant, representing an organisation does not fall within the definition of "citizen" as laid down in the Section 3 of the Act; b) The Act while ensuring secure access of information from public authority to citizen, does not lay down any mandate for the public authority to provide services of gathering and supplying information for completion of research projects assigned to organization; c) Hypothetical assumptions of the researcher and and/or opinions or advice sought in the form of information do not fall within the definition of 'information' as per the provision of the Act, hence only the material or information available in records in physical form can be supplied by the CPIO. It was further submitted by the respondent in his written submission that information considered relevant and necessary for proactive disclosure has been duly posted on the website of the Akademi and the violation of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act can be ascertained by an audit of the proactive disclosure by a competent authority.
8. Dr. A N Chakravarty, Consultant represented the Respondent Public Authority, since the concerned CPIO was reportedly on medical leave.
9. The Appellant, Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik and Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mishra were present during the hearing.
DECISION
10. The submissions of the Respondent Akademi dated 05.02.2009, mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate the difference in opinion among the Ministry of Culture, Respondent Akademi, Appellant and the Planning Commission with respect to the assigning of such a research to an organization like SANKALP in view of the basic issue of integrity, capacity and competence of the Appellant NGO in question. In fact there has been strong observation from the Secretary, Ministry of Culture to the Planning Commission for withdrawal of the assignment as also for blacklisting of the NGO headed by the Appellant. Be that as it may, the said difference in opinions is out of the ambit of the instant appeals and the issue therein is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, hence the said facts though noted are not dealt with while deciding these RTI cases.
11. The detailed arguments of both the parties and the documentary records produced before the Commission indicates the fact that the questionnaire as put forth by the Appellant is indeed too voluminous and would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. However in view of the fact that the information sought by the Appellant is justified under the provisions of the Act, the Commission arrives at a decision with the consent of both the parties that the Appellant shall prioritize and revise the RTI request restricting the number of questions to 8 relevant questions, seeking information based on records available in physical form without asking information about hypothetical situations or queries which tend to be in the nature of asking for the opinion or advice of the CPIO.
12. The Appellant shall approach the concerned CPIO with the revised RTI request, as directed hereinabove within a period of 15 days and the CPIO is directed to furnish the information available with him within a period of 30 days thereafter. The Commission further directs the CPIO of the Akademi to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 by putting up all the relevant and necessary information pertaining to the various activities, programmes, policies etc on their website. In the event that the Appellant is still dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, she shall be free to approach the Commission seeking appropriate remedy available in law for the non compliance of the order.
[ANNAPURNA DIXIT] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik B-1/8, 2nd Floor, Africa Avenue Road, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029
2. Dy. Secretary & CPIO Sangeet Natak Akademi National Academy of Music, Dance & Drama Rabindra Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Jt. Secy. & First Appellate Authority Ministry of Culture 334 (A), 'C' Wing Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC