Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 24 June, 2020
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.(s) :- CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/157881-BJ+
CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/165822-BJ
Dr. Nutan Thakur
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary (EA),
Ministry of External Affairs,
South Block, New Delhi
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2020
Date of Decision : 24.06.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/157881-BJ Date of RTI application 19.07.2018 CPIO's response 25.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.09.2018 FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of one or more files in the Prime Minister Office (PMO) (including Notesheet and correspondence of PMO with various other offices) as regards the news article related with the stranded Kailash Yatris in Nepal, particularly in view of the official twitter statements made by the Prime Minister.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.07.2018, informed that the Ministry of External Affairs (East Division) conducts the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra every year between June to September 2018 through the Nathu La route in Sikkim and the Lipulekh route in Uttarakhand. The Yatra through Nepal is organized by Private Tour Operators, and hence, the relevant information may be treated as Nil. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 5
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/165822-BJ
Date of RTI application 19.07.2018
CPIO's response 25.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.11.2018
FACTS
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of one or more files in the Prime Minister Office (PMO) (including Notesheet and correspondence of PMO with various other offices) as regards the news article related with the stranded Kailash Yatris in Nepal, particularly in view of the official twitter statements made by the Prime Minister.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.07.2018, informed that the Ministry of External Affairs (East Division) conducts the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra every year between June to September 2018 through the Nathu La route in Sikkim and the Lipulekh route in Uttarakhand. The Yatra through Nepal is organized by Private Tour Operators, and hence, the relevant information may be treated as Nil. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nutan Thakur through TC;
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Aggarwal and Mr. Shafiur Rabbi, US (East Asia) through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information was not received by her, till date. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA and stated that the Ministry of External Affairs (East Division) conducts the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra every year between June to September through the Nathu La route in Sikkim and the Lipulekh route in Uttarakhand. The Yatra through Nepal is organized by Private Tour Operators. Accordingly, a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant. It was further informed that a copy of Press Release issued in this regard had also been provided to the Appellant which was acknowledged by her. Furthermore, it was conveyed that the Appellant had separately filed RTI applications on similar subject matter with the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu and a copy of the Press Releases was furnished to her. However, the Appellant remained dissatisfied with the replies. On a query from the Commission, if any Parliament question was answered in this respect, the Respondent replied in the negative.
The Commission noted that similar matters had been heard and adjudicated by it in File Nos. CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/157887-BJ and CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/165820-BJ dated 06.05.2020.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated Nil wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO, it was inter alia submitted that the Appellant had submitted several RTI petitions and First Appeals to the East Asia Division, Page 2 of 5 MEA, Northern Division, MEA and the Embassy of India, Kathmandu on the issue. According to the inputs provided by the Embassy of India at Kathmandu which was primarily handling this issue, the Appellant had filed three similar RTI applications followed by three First Appeals. It was further submitted that the CPIO is not supposed to do a research-work for responding to an RTI application or on basis of hypothetical queries based on news-reports. CPIO can provide information only that exists on record. Filing repeated RTI applications with similar or twisted queries on the same subject is held misuse of RTI Act, 2005 in several court-verdicts. In view of the above, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose of the Appeal accordingly. The Commission instructed the CPIO to provide a copy of the written submission to the Appellant at her e-mail address ([email protected]).
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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 was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law.
Page 3 of 5Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
As regards the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with regard to the aforementioned decision, the Commission observed that re-visiting the said orders would amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Commission which was not envisaged within the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DDA vs. CIC and Anr WP (C) 12714/2009 Decided On: 21.05.2010 could be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner, to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal. Clearly, the said regulation is beyond the contemplation of the Act. Such a regulation is ultra vires the provisions of the Act"
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India and Another W.P.(C) 5086/2010( date of decision: November 18, 2011 had also held as under:
"It is well settled that unless the power of review is vested statutorily, the Court/ authority has no inherent power of review. See Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,(1971)3SCC844.
Regulation 23 of The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, as amended vide notification No.CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 20.10.2008 further exemplifies the position. Prior to this amendment, the aforesaid Regulation 23 read as follows:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. (2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request.Page 4 of 5
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.(emphasis supplied) After the said aforesaid amendment carried out in the year 2008, Regulation 23 of the aforesaid Regulations now read as follows:-
A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. It is, therefore, even more clear that by amendment, the legislature has specifically withdrawn the power of review which earlier vested in the CIC."
A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Aseem Takyar vs. CIC and Anr, W.P.(C) 6699/2013 dated 11.04.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of earlier decisions of the Commission in File Nos. CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/157887-BJ and CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/165820-BJ dated 06.05.2020, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email ([email protected]), as agreed.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (नबमल जुल्का) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) K.L. Das (के .एल.िास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 24.06.2020 Page 5 of 5