Central Information Commission
Abhishek Prasad vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/615176
Shri Abhishek Prasad ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.05.2025
Date of Decision : 02.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.09.2023
PIO replied on : 10.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 09.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.01.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. In an article published on 20 April 2017 in the Indian Express, it was reported that the Central Government had cancelled the registration granted to Public Health Foundation of India ("PHFI") under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 ("FCRA") due to alleged violations of the statute, including alleged lobbying with Members of Parliament and the media. Additionally, PHFI had allegedly opened accounts which it did not disclose, misreported foreign donations received and transferred money abroad without alerting the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2. It was also stated in a press release dated 06 March 2018 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs that PHFI would have to obtain prior permission under FCRA before accepting each foreign contribution. It was further stated in this press release that "PHFI shall provide detailed information to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare regarding utilisation of the foreign contribution at the end of every quarter. A Committee constituted by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare is to review the foreign contribution received and spent by the PHFI on quarterly basis."
3. Thereafter, in an article published on 08 February 2022 in the Indian Express, it has been reported that the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Nityanand Rai, had responded to a question in Lok Sabha and stated that since November 2021, Page 1 of 3 the Central Government has restored the FCRA registration of PHFI by way of revision under Section 32 of FCRA.
4. In light of these developments, I hereby seek the following information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
a. Copy of the full order passed by Central Government revoking/cancelling the FCRA registration of PHFI, as reported in 2017 (kindly refer to para 1 above). b. Copies of all materials relied upon by Central Government for passing the above order referred at para 4(a) above.
c. Copy of the full order passed by Central Government directing that PHFI shall obtain prior permission under FCRA before accepting any foreign contribution, as stated in MHA's Press Release dated 06 March 2018 (kindly refer to para 2 above). d. Copies of all materials relied on by Central Government for passing the order referred at para 4(c) above.
e. Copies of all quarterly reports/documents submitted by PHFI to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, giving detailed information on utilization of foreign contributions received by PHFI, pursuant to the order referred in MHA's Press Release dated 06 March 2018 (kindly refer to para 2 above). f. Minutes of Meetings of Committee constituted by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to review the foreign contribution received and spent by PHFI on quarterly basis, pursuant to the order referred in MHA's Press Release dated 06 March 2018 (kindly refer to para 2 above).
g. All reports issued by the Committee referred in para 4(e) above. h. Copy of the full judgment and order passed by Central Government in revision under Section 32 of FCRA restoring the FCRA registration of PHFI (kindly refer to para 3 above).
i. Copies of all materials relied on by Central Government for passing the order referred to at para 4(h) above.
j. Copies of all communications exchanged between Ministry of Home Affairs and PHFI after restoration of PHFI's FCRA registration in revision under Section 32 of FCRA.
k. List of complaints received by MHA in respect of PHFI, including but not limited to any complaints claiming that PHFI is conducting its work on behalf of a third party.
l. Copies of each of the complaints referred at para 4(k) above along with all supporting documents received with the complaints.
m. Copies of documents available with MHA relating to details of the institutional and personal wealth that have been accumulated by PHFI and its members respectively.
n. Copies of documents, if any, that indicate that PHFI or its members have made personal gains by compromising the interests of the Indian economy, Indian industry, trade, business or agriculture of any person in India.
The Deputy Secretary (MU) and CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 10.11.2023 replied as under:-
"Point No. A to K The sought information is in the form of query/seeking opinion, clarification and not specific. This also involves compilation of records which does not constitute information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2024 stated as under:-
Page 2 of 3"4. ........the undersigned has carefully examined the contents of the appeal, above referred RTI application and reply of CPIO. It has been noted that CPIO & Deputy Secretary (MU) has provided the information vide letter dated 10.11.2023. The reply given is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission bearing signature dated 21.05.2025 has been received from the Director, MHA reiterating the response already sent to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Represented by Shri Divyansh Singh - Advocate Respondent: Dr. Sudeepta Ghosh - Director, MHA was present during hearing.
The Appellant's counsel expressed dissatisfaction stating that information was denied by a vague and baseless reply. He has also contended that the FAA also passed the order without application of mind. Respondent present during hearing reiterated the PIO's response and stated that the Appellant's query was not specific and required compilation of records which does not constitute information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. She further added that the information sought relates to confidential category of data which cannot be disclosed in public domain.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information sought by the Appellant based on press releases and newspaper articles. No specific document or data was sought vide the RTI application, as has been pointed out by the PIO. In the given scenario, the PIO's reply dated 10.11.2023 appears appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, the reply of the Respondent is upheld and the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)