Central Information Commission
Amritpal Singh Khalsa vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/158544
Shri Amritpal Singh Khalsa ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Technology
Date of Hearing : 29.01.2024
Date of Decision : 29.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2022
PIO replied on : 30.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 10.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 21.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 14.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1.Please provide certified copy of final order/findings/notings passed by the Review committee as mandated under rule 14 of Information Technology (Procedure &Safeguards for Blocking for access of Information by Public Rules, 2009)
2. Please provide certified copy of the entire proceedings/file before the Review committee in relation to Sidhu Mosewala SYL Canal Song
3. Please provide certified copy of the file notings of the Review Committee of Sidhu Mosewala SYL Canal Song.
4. Name, designation, contact details of 1 appellate authority in this regard."
The CPIO and Dy Director, RTI/ PG Cell, MeitY vide letter dated 30.08.2022 transferred the RTI application to CPIO and Scientist 'E', Cyber Laws and e- Security Division, MeitY u/s 6(3) RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2022. The FAA and Scientist 'F', MeitY vide order dated 21.11.2022 stated as under:-
Page 1 of 3"With reference to the 03 RTI's and the subsequent appeal, it is hereby informed that the CPIO has already responded on 6.09.2022 to all the 03 RTI's and that the response covers all the queries raised in the RTI(s).
2. Following the responses, the appeal is disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal, CPIO and Scientist D;
2. Dr Gaurav Gupta, Scientist 'E' The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Several attempts made by the Commission to contact the Appellant through audio conference went in vain as the calls remained unanswered. On perusal of the Second Appeal it is found that the Appellant has primarily contended that the PIO and Dy Director vide letter dated 30.08.2022 transferred the RTI application to Sh. Gaurav Cupta, Scientist 'E', Cyber Laws & e-Security Division, MeitY u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. However, no response was received from Shri Gupta within the stipulated time period. The first appeal was decided without application of mind as the aforementioned contention was ignored. The Appellant therefore prayed for direction to PIO to disclose the information free of cost and to direct the FAA to pass reasoned speaking orders.
Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal reiterated the written submission sent to the Commission dated Nil, the relevant extracts of which are as under. Dr Jaiswal added that a copy of the submission is also shared with the Appellant through e-mail.
"Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 empowers Government to block information from public access under specific conditions of: (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) security of the State, (iv) friendly relations with foreign States or (v) public order or (vi) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to above.
The due process being followed is defined in The Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009.
The information requested in the RTI has been dealt under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 published with Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, which is confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed.Page 2 of 3
Further, as per Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.
Further, as section 69A of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and its matters are related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence. Thus, it attracts provisions of 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the requested information is exempted under the RTI Act."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. However, it is noted that no reply subsequent to the transfer of application u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided and it is only at the first appeal stage that the factual position was explained. The Commission therefore directs Dr Gaurav Gupta, Scientist 'E' to ensure that timelines stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005 are strictly complied with in future.
Dr Girija Nandan Jaiswal, CPIO and Scientist D is also directed to re-send his written submission on his official letter head, duly signed and stamped to the Appellant through speed post by 15.02.2024 under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
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