Central Information Commission
Abhinav Pal vs Defence Research And Development ... on 29 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DRDOR/A/2018/168878/DRADO
In the matter of:
Abhinav Pal
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Scientist G,
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO),
Defence Electronics Applications Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Post box No- 54, Dehradun - 248001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/06/2018 CPIO replied on : 25/06/2018 First appeal filed on : 23/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 23/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 19/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 28/12/2020 Date of Decision : 28/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Scientist D and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant had sought the following information pertaining to his wife Late Ms. Ritu Pal, D/o Narender Kumar Pal who had been working in DRDO:
1. Provide the copy of entire attendance sheet/module from her date of joining till 5th July, 2017.
2. Provide copies of all her leave applications from the date of joining till 5th July, 2017.1
3. Provide copies of salary slip for the period from July, 2016 to June, 2017.
4. Provide copies of all her applications for transfer from the date of joining till 30/09/2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the sought for information claiming exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information has been denied to the appellant by seeking exemption u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act despite seeking very basic information from them. He submitted that u/s 24(1) there are two exceptions and the matter is related to human rights violation and hence the exception is applicable. He pointed out that he is facing criminal charges and had spent already 8 months in judicial custody and his father too was in jail for one month. He stated that the information sought shall help him in defending his case.
In his second appeal dated 19.12.2018 he submitted that his wife was not having any contact with him from last 1 year approx. and she had committed suicide in her service quarter in Dehradun i.e 700 kms away from Kanpur, the place where he lives. After this, his brother-in-law lodged a false dowry case against him, his whole family and some other relatives stating factually wrong information and blatant lies. Although in reality she Iived with him for very few days after marriage and from almost 1 year before her death she was not in contact with him in any way, physically or telephonically because of her long pre-marital affair with another person which was continued by her even after marriage. So this is a case of Human Rights violation for him, his old, handicapped father, and old,ill mother.
He summed up stating that he had asked for very basic information about his deceased wife who was working as LDC in the organization , such as her leave record, transfer requests etc. Such information about a clerical level administrative employee cannot affect scientific, strategic or security interests of the nation or DRDO.2
The CPIO submitted that DRDO is an exempt organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and a reply to this effect was given to the appellant on 25.06.2018. When the CPIO was informed about the background of the case as narrated by the appellant and the fact that there was a human rights violation, he agreed to provide information in case the CIC so directs. However, he could not explain whether the information sought relates to human rights violation as claimed by the appellant.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA and concludes that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to quote an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".3
In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.
The Commission therefore thoroughly examined the information sought alongwith the above quoted cases and found that the information sought by the applicant has in no way any nexus to his human rights violations.While it may be a fact that he was wrongly framed in a criminal case by his brother-in- law and he had to be in jail for sometime, but the same cannot be a ground for disclosing information by DRDO. The investigation of a criminal case or the procedure followed by the concerned agency is independent of the information sought by the applicant and hence the exception claimed is not applicable.
In the instant case, no case of human rights violation or corruption has been made out by the Appellant in his second appeal memo as well during the hearing.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4