Central Information Commission
Santosh Maurya vs Sports Authority Of India on 21 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SAOIN/A/2022/142061
Santosh Maurya ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
BOXING FEDERATION OF INDIA,
RTI CELL, 319/323, UDHYOG
VIHAR, PHASE-4, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122015. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/07/2023
Date of Decision : 20/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 24/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.05.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your multifarious complaints and RTI application in respect of functioning of Delhi Amateur Boxing Association (DABA).
The matter was taken up by DABA. They have submitted a comprehensive reply through their letter dated 16th February 2022. A copy of their reply is attached with this letter. For all competitions at National / State / District Levels also in the 2 sport of Boxing, the rules stipulated by International Boxing Association and Boxing Federation of India are applicable.
The provisions of the Memorandum of Association of (MoA) DABA govern the Election to the Executive Council of DABA and the names and designations of their officials and department in which the function can be obtained from DABA. On this consideration a copy of this reply is also being given to DABA to provide you with further information.
Having made the above mentions, it is further to state that from various papers you have submitted till now, your exact concerns are not understood. Therefore, you are at liberty to mid the undersigned in the Office of Boxing Federation of India and explain in detail so that, any genuine aspect for improvement of Boxing in Delhi can be addressed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Represented by Krishna Kumar, Project Officer present through intra- video conference.
At the outset, the Appellant sought adjournment in the matter on the plea that he was not aware of the complete facts of the case right now, but subsequently , the Appellant feebly stated that complete desired information has not been provided by the CPIO till date.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that reply at first instance was furnished by the then CPIO who has since retired; however, he volunteered to provide a revised reply along with relevant information upon directions of the bench.
Decision:3
As far as relief for at point no. 1 is concerned, the Commission upon perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Now, coming to point no. 2, the Commission noted from records that the information sought by the Appellant on the said point does not even fall under the ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the query raised therein is speculative in nature seeking clarifications to be deduced from the CPIO.
For better understanding of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, it is also not out of place to note that the personal details of third party including their names, permission letters, NOC, etc. as sought by the Appellant partially at points no. 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 impinges on their privacy and thus, such information cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--4
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, as a matter of limited relief and in the spirit of RTI Act the CPIO is directed to provide the total numbers of staff/ officers (in numeric figures) as sought for at points no. 3 to 8 without divulging the personal details of said third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The 5 said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6