Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs India Security Press, Nashik Road on 18 February, 2020
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/ISPNR/C/2018/623700
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, India Security Press, ... ितवादी/Respondent
(SPMCIL), Nashik, Maharashtra.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 26-10-2017 FA : Not on record Complaint: 19-06-2018
CPIO : 08-11-2017 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 17-02-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), India Security Press, (SPMCIL), Nashik seeking following information:-
1. "Proofs that the appellant is misusing RTI as a tool to write foul language (Please provide certified photocopy thereof limiting to relevant paragraphs.).
2. Name, Designation, Email addresses, and official mobile numbers of all the officials who approved the subject letter submitted by APIO Mr. Sunil Dupare along with copy of its file noting draft.
3. Name, Designation, Email address, and official mobile number of the controlling authority of employees [of S. no. 2] with whom the grievance could be addressed."
2. The CPIO responded on 08-11-2017. Thereafter, 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, 2005.
Page 1 of 5Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing in person. Mr. Sachin K Soni, AM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. Pointing out to the excerpts of certain documents, the complainant vehemently argued that the 'words' used by him in the referred documents do not smack of any 'foul language' and hence, the ISP-Nashik's submission that he is misusing RTI as a tool to write foul language is wholly unjust and baseless.
5. The respondent submitted that the queries raised by the complainant are in the nature of seeking clarification. Nonetheless, they have provided him a reply thereby indicating factual position in the matter vide their letter dated 08-11-2017. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
6. This Commission is not the right forum to adjudicate upon the matter as to whether the words used by the complainant are in the nature of foul language or not. Hence, this Commission is obligated to dispose of the complaint as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, this Commission observes that the complainant has raised certain queries from the CPIO expecting him to analyse and interpret the relevant portions of certain documents in order to provide the information after creating it in the manner sought by the complainant. But the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the documents for creating the information in the format sought by the complainant. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information"
under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
7. Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided a reply to the complainant thereby indicating factual position in the matter vide their letter dated 08-11-2017 which holds good. However, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification and interpretation of the documents to the complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Page 2 of 5 Act, 2005. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO is not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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 Page 3 of 5 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."
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."
8. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
9. 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
दनांक / Date 17-02-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
India Security Press, (SPMCIL),
CPIO, Nashik Road, Distt-Nashik,
Maharashtra-422101
2. Varun Krishna
Page 5 of 5