Central Information Commission
Drneelam Bhalla vs Ministry Of Defence on 4 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Tel: +911126106140/26179548
File
No.CIC/CC/A/2014/000146/DP
FileNo.CIC/RM/A/2014/004648/DP
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001238/DP
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001239/DP
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001241/DP
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001242/DP
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002227/DP
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002228/DP
Date of decision: 04.05.2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant Dr. Neelam Bhalla
Type 5, Flat No. C20,
Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi110049
Respondent CPIO,
Defence Research & Development
Organisation
RTI Cell, 314 (B) Block,
DRDO Bhawan
New Delhi110011
RTI 08/2/ 2/3/14 17/9/14 19/9/14 20/9/14 21/9/14 26/1/14 26/2/1
dated 14 4
PIO 6/3/1 31/3/1 7/10/14 7/10/14 7/10/14 17/10/1 12/11/1 25/3/1
reply 4 4 4 4 4
dated
First 10/4/ 25/4/1 17/10/1 19/10/1 20/10/1 25/10/1 10/12/1 6/2/15
appeal 14 4 4 2 4 4 4
dated
FAA 16/5/ 16/5/1 14/11/1 14/11/1 14/11/1 17/11/1 12/1/15 15/3/1
order 14 4 4 4 4 4 5
dated
Second 7/7/1 8/7/14 13/1/15 15/1/15 16/1/15 17/1/15 20/3/15 21/3/1
appeal 4 5
dated
1
Information sought:
File No.CIC/CC/A/2014/000146/DP Pertaining to the assessment and promotion of Scientists"F" to Scientists"G"and Scientists "G" to Scientists "H" in the year 2013, Appellant sought the following information :
She wants certified copy of the minutes of the peer committee for promotion of Scientists "F"to Scientists "G" and "G" to "H" held on 3052013 and 05072013. She also wants certified copies of grounds/reasons recorded based on peer Committee. She wants to know whether any representation was submitted by any Scientist "F" and "G"regarding promotion of Scientists "F" and "G" to Scientist "G" and "H" to SA to RM/DG R & D and Minister of Defence.
FileNo.CIC/RM/A/2014/004648/DP Appellant sought the information regarding promotion of Scientist "F" to "G" in the year 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. She wants to know various questions about the compliance to DO & PT OMs dated 1405 2009 and 13042010 and whether that has been furnished by the competent authority before commencement of Internal Committee Meeting and Peer Committee Meeting. She wants to know the date of meetings as well and average marks awarded to her by the Internal Screening Committee Meeting. According to her assessment proceedings for promotion of Scientist 'F' to 'G' were concluded without resolving the issues pertaining to noncommunication of CPARs/APRs at appropriate time.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001238/DP Appellant sought the information related to (DOP) letter no DOP/06/6003/NB dated 28/03/2012 regarding copy of her APAR for the year 2011 sent by DOP DRDO Hqrs to DTRL. She wants to know the name and office address of person to whom letter was addressed, diary no and date on which the letter was dispatched and various other information related to the letter.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001239/DP Appellant sought the information related to letter no C TEC/02/2091/P/2009 dated 23112009. Pertaining to the letters sent by 'CPIO, DRDO Hqrs to 'the custodian for information she wants to know the name and office address of person to whom letter was addressed, diary no and date on which the letter was dispatched and various other information related to letter.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001241/DP 2 Appellant sought the information pertaining to Internal Screening Committee (Main) in the year 2011 about the certified copies of Movement order of each and every scientist directed to move from one station to another station for interaction with the Internal Screening Committee(Main), as directed by Director RAC and details of expenditure incurred by DRDO in the movement of each and every scientist from one station to another.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001242/DP Appellant sought the information pertaining to Internal Screening Committee (Main) in the year 2011 about the certified copies of Movement order of each and every officer/staff of RAC directed to move from one station to another station to provide logistic support, conduct or organise Internal Screening Committee (Main) meeting and details of expenditure incurred by DRDO in the movement of each and every officer/staff from one station to another whereas the recommendations of the meeting were not utilized as stated by her.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002227/DP Appellant sought the information related to letter no DTRL/RTI/2013 14/03/528 dated 26/11/2013 pertaining to the expenditure of Rs 94.77 lakhs incurred in renovating Director's office & Director's secretariat in Defence Terrain Research Lab (DTRL). She wants to inspect the files of renovation and requested for certified copies of selected pages under Section 2 J (2) of RTI Act 2005 and various other information related to this.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002228/DP Appellant sought the information pertaining to work undertaken in ''Network & Computing Infrastructure (NC & I)" for DRONA access, AMC, Egovernance applications and EPABX and "Technical Coordination'' work in DTRL from 01/01/2010 till date and from 01/01/2011 to 30/05/2012. She wants to inspect the files and requested for certified copies of selected pages under Section 2 J (2) of RTI Act 2005. She wants that the information should be provided to her regarding items purchased under 'cash purchase' (items costing Rs 15,000/ or less) and other information related to this.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The CPIO has denied the desired information by stating that DRDO is exempted under section 24(1).3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 27.04.16:
The following were present: Appellant: Dr. Neelam Bhalla present in person.
Respondent: Dr. P.N. Joglekar, CPIO, DRTL, Dr. K.K. Dahiya, CPIO, RAC, Dr. R.B. Sharma, CPIO, DRDO HQ and Deepak Mishra, DRDO HQ were present in person.
Appellant wanted two days time to submit a written submission in respect of all the cases in which she would bring out specific instances of corruption and human rights violation. Commission allowed her to give submission with copy to respondent. She has given submission within the stipulated time and contents of the same have been taken into records.
File No.CIC/CC/A/2014/000146/DP The appellant submitted that corruption is not only money whereas it can be of various forms. She was highlighting corruption in service matters. CPIO stated that the information asked by the appellant comes under Section 2(f) pertaining to point 5 to 8 and point 1 to 4 comes under Section 24(1) which is exempted under RTI Act.
FileNo.CIC/RM/A/2014/004648/DP The appellant stated that DOPT rule has not been followed with regard to promotion and assessment of scientist. She mentioned that other Scientists were shown their APARs and she was discriminated. She alleged that copies of APARs were provided to her on 04032013 whereas misleading reply was given to the Hon'ble President of India that copies of APARs were provided to her on 02052011.CPIO submitted that the above information is exempt under section 24(1).
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001238/DP The appellant submitted that she wanted to see the copy of her APAR for the year 2011 but it was denied and conveyed to her that it's lost whereas CPIO denied this by saying that it is exempted under section 24(1). Lastly uncertified copy of APARs was provided to her on 30052012 after interview for promotion was concluded (i.e. on 23052012) FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001239/DP The appellant mentioned that she wanted to get information regarding name and office address of the custodian of the 4 information whereas it was denied so she wrote letter to President and search notice has been issued. Then she got information that files are lost which attracts criminal offence. She submitted that PIO has possibly given reply to her RTI application on his own or on the verbal instructions of his seniors. CPIO submitted that it is exempted under section 24(1).
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001241/DP The appellant stated that she wanted the certified copies of movement order of each and every scientist directed to move from one station to another for interaction with the Internal Screening Committee. In this case statutory rule has been violated. DRDO rule has been bypassed. Around 120 candidates had been called. She wants to know the details of expenditure incurred by DRDO in movement of each scientist. It is wastage of Government fund and amounts to corruption. CPIO mentioned that Scientists are called for annual assessment.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/001242/DP The appellant wanted to know the details about internal screening committee in the year 2011 which was denied by CPIO under section 24(1). She submitted that the miscellaneous expenditure incurred in the year 2011 is very high in comparison to years 2012 & 2013 despite the fact that number of Scientists interviewed were much less in comparison to number of Scientists interviewed in the year 2012 & 2013.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002227/DP The appellant stated that she wants to know regarding expenditure incurred for renovation of Director's office and Director Sectt. in DTRL. She was allowed to inspect the files but note sheets, statement of cases and other relevant documents are not available in files. According to her, 1Crore has been spent to renovate room. She alleges corruption in it. CPIO submitted that order for inspection was ordered by Director himself that's why she could inspect the files. CPIO denied the allegation of corruption.
FileNo.CIC/CC/A/2015/002228/DP The appellant stated that she wants to know regarding network and computing infrastructure for DRONA access, internet access, AMC, Egovernance applications and EPABX and Technical coordination. She submitted that the files as per government rules should have been routed through her as she is head of Division II but the officers of DTRL colluded and bypassed her.She inspects the record but photocopies were not provided to her so she alleges corruption 5 whereas CPIO mentioned that the above information was exempted under section 24(1).
Decision:
DRDO has been placed in Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub section 2 of section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO. Section 24(1) of the Act is reproduced below:
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within fortyfive days from the date of the receipt of request.
This has been reasserted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide it's decision in Civil Appeal No. 6454 arising out of SLP No. 7526/2009 in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case stating:
''Exclusion of the Act in entirety under section 24 to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule even though they may be "public authorities", (except in regard to information with reference to allegations of corruption and human rights violations)''.
The Right to Information Act 2005 was enacted to bring transparency and accountability in functioning of the Government, both of which help to reduce corruption and increase efficiency in governance. It also encourages people to participate in the functioning of democratic institutions.6
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2001) 4SCC 534 held as under:
''The golden rule is that the words of the statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning."
The expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human right'' is not defined in the Act. It is thus open for the Commission to decide the veracity of allegation on both counts case to case basis. Allegation of corruption and Human Rights violation in this section should be construed to mean verifiable allegations meaning that some charge of corruption or Human Rights violation is not sufficient in absence of supporting material that such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. Anyone who utters word 'corruption' or alleges corruption does not become entitled to get information from Public Authorities exempted u/s 24(1).The onus of proving allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the appellant.
Appellant has produced some documents in respect of her charge of corruption but in absence of its evidentiary value, the Commission does not take cognizance of the same. Allegations should be based on evidentiary support which has to be determined by circumstances of those allegations and evidence produced by the party. It is the view of Commission that allegation of human rights violation and corruption should not construed merely in terms of whether somebody has chosen to make those allegations but in terms of promised evidence that such allegations would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was a possibility of these allegations being true. Not only the allegations but surrounding allegations etc. need to be examined. In the present appeal the appellant has failed to satisfy the Commission about allegation of corruption and human rights violation against DRDO. Appellant has not provided cogent and reasonable legal evidence to establish allegation of corruption and human rights violation.
In all the appeals, Appellant wants inspection of relevant files and also certified copies of pages besides certain other information. Allowing disclosure and inspection of files to the appellant will go against the provisions of RTI in respect to Organisations listed in the Second Schedule. The same view has been reiterated in the writ petition filed by the Appellant in W.P. (C) 83/2014 before Delhi High Court (Single Bench) where it was held by the Court that it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption. And in other LPA 229/2014 before Delhi High Court (Division Bench), when she 7 approached the Hon'ble Court on the same issue it was held by the court that DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the RTI Act 2005.These writ petitions had been filed challenging the order dated 22/08/2013 passed by the Central Information Commission where CPIO had been directed to supply selected file noting to the appellant. The appellant wanted complete information and also action against the CPIO.
Commission is unable to give any relief to Appellant as it is not satisfied with the submission of Appellant that case of corruption and human rights violation is made out. No further action lies.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Raghubir Singh) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 8