Central Information Commission
Shri. Paras Nath Singh vs Prime Minister Office on 3 February, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000517 & 1164
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 3 February 2012
Date of decision : 3 February 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Paras Nath Singh
H.No. S/13, Banna Devi,
G.T. Road, Aligarh.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prime Minister's Office,
South Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Mrs. Sanjukta Ray, CPIO,
(ii) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, CAPIO,
(iii) Shri Subhendu Hota, CAPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant has filed two second appeals which we took up for hearing today through video conferencing. The Appellant was present in the Mallapuram studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard all their submissions.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought a variety of CIC/SM/A/2011/000517 & 1164 information ranging from the correspondence made by the then Prime Minister with the President of India in respect of the proclamation of emergency in 1975 to various correspondence made by the Prime Minister of India and others concerning the 2G Scam. In response to the first request regarding the correspondence between the PM and President, the CPIO had informed him that no such records were available in the PMO. In respect of the second request regarding the correspondence between the Prime Minister and others concerning the 2G Scam, the CPIO had not provided any information on the ground that the Appellant had not indeed requested for any information in the first place but had, instead, offered to provide some such records. In both the cases, the Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant insisted that he should be provided with the entire information as he did not believe that the Prime Minister's office should not be having the correspondence the then PM made with the President of India for imposing emergency. He also argued that some grammatical error in his second RTI application should not have been the ground for rejecting it and not providing any information. On the other hand, the Respondents argued that, indeed, they could not locate any records relating to the correspondence made by the then PM with the President of India in spite of elaborate search and, therefore, the CPIO had truthfully informed the Appellant about the status. However, in regard to the second request, it was argued that apart from the confusion arising out of the peculiar structure of the sentences in the RTI application which began with 'Let me provide', on merit also, the desired information could not now be disclosed as this had been, in the meanwhile, presented by the Prime Minister's office to the Parliamentary Standing CIC/SM/A/2011/000517 & 1164 Committee which had been looking into this entire matter as would amount to breach of privilege of Parliament and, therefore, would attract the exemption provision contained in subsection 1(c) of Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
5. After carefully considering the submissions made before us and the facts of both the cases, our view is that the CPIO cannot be faulted for not providing the copies of the correspondence made by the then Prime Minister with the President of India concerning the proclamation of emergency in 1975 as the said records are claimed to be not available in the PMO. However, we must observe that this is somewhat surprising. The records relating to such an important event in the history of postindependence India should be carefully preserved for future and cannot be allowed to get lost in the labyrinth of the government offices. We would like the competent authorities in the PMO to enquire into this matter and to ensure that these records are retrieved or traced, wherever they might be, and should be preserved appropriately for the citizens to access.
6. However, in regard to the second set of requests, our view is that the refusal of the CPIO to part with any information merely because the request was unfortunately worded is not entirely right. While it is admitted that the Appellant should be very careful in framing his request and not leave any ambiguity, the CPIO should also not insist on grammatical or syntactic correctness of RTI requests but act on the thrust of the request instead. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the desired information should be provided only if this is not exempted under any of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Since the CPIO or the Appellate Authority had not considered the RTI CIC/SM/A/2011/000517 & 1164 request on merit, we would now like the CPIO to pass a speaking order, either providing the information or, in case of denial, to cite appropriate exemption provisions. Needless to say, in case of denial of information, the Appellant would have the right to approach the first and the second Appellate Authority, as the case may be. We direct the CPIO to complete the exercise as stated above within 10 working days of receiving this order and inform the Appellant accordingly in a speaking order.
7. Both the second appeals are thus disclosed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/000517 & 1164