Central Information Commission
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 27 December, 2018
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.CIC/MHOME/A/2018/609008
Ms. Anjali Bharadwaj, ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
NewDelhi-110017
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Nodal Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs, .... प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Through:- Sh. V S Rana - DS(HR):
Sh. RajendraBharati-US
Date of Hearing : 20.12.2018
Date of Decision : 27.12.2018
Information Commissioner : Shri BimalJulka
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.07.2017
PIO replied on : 23.08.2017
First Appeal filed on : 24.08.2017
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.02.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.07.2017, the Appellant sought information about complete reports (including all volumes and annexures) of various Inquiry Commissions or Judicial Commissions on communal riots/incidents/disturbances. The PIO vide letter dated 23.08.2017denied information stating that the information as sought was not held in their custody. Aggrieved by such denial of information, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2017, which was not heard by the FAA. Being dissatisfied with the denial of information, the Appellant filed Second Appeal before the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present. Appellant has reiterated her queries stating that no cogent response/information has been received so far from the Respondent. Respondent has neither provided information nor transferred the RTI Application. In fact, it is seen that the Respondent has not even furnished any reasonable justification for such complete inaction. It is an admitted fact that the MHA had constituted a Committee to study the reports of Judicial Commissions and Inquiry Commissions about the anatomy of Communal riots. Appellant has elucidated that the Committee was set up for examination of reports of 29 Commissions and Reports about communal riots. While 16 of the Reports are already on website, information about remaining 13 of them have been sought by Appellant since they were not on website. The MHA had constituted this Committee to study the reports and during the hearing the Respondents from MHA have stated that no such report was submitted before them.
Decision In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is noted that the unexplained, unreasoned but consistent approach of the Respondent of shirking their role as custodian of information, and casual approach of the PIO is defeating the purpose of transparency and administration of the RTI regime. The issue raised by the Appellant in this case is one which involves larger public interest and thus the conduct of the PIO, MHA is found totally unacceptable. The Commission directs the Joint Secy. Sh. SCL Das and the Home Secretary, MHA to depute a senior Official to examine the issue at hand and submit a well-reasoned Report within 15 days. The Report shall clearly establish the following:
i) Who is the actual custodian of information;
ii) What prevented the PIO, MHA from transferring the RTI Application to
the relevant custodian of information;
iii) Complete status of the 13 Reports which are not available on the website and the cause for non-uploading of the same on the website;
iv) Reasonable cause as to why punitive action should not be initiated against the PIO, MHA for causing deliberate obstruction to the flow and dissemination of information and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
This Report must reach the Commission within a fortnight of receipt of this order, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be initiated by the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(BimalJulka) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover Dy. Registrar 011-26180514 /राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर, उप-पंजीयक