Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Niti Aayog on 29 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/NITIA/A/2022/654801 &
CIC/NITIA/A/2022/654802
Gita Dewan Verma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
NITI Aayog, NITI Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.04.2025
Date of Decision : 29.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is identical in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2022
CPIO replied on : 18.07.2022
First appeal filed on : 19.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.08.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
Page 1 of 81. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 11.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"In No. CABST/R/E/22/00028 dated 17/01/22 I had requested information of the manner in which information related to Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues (CC-UIDAI) has been made public by mandate u/s 8(1)(1) since its discontinuation in 2014. Cabinet Secretariat had made transfer on 27/01/22, about which I had sent email dated 28/01/22 on subject Appeal u/s 19(1)/request in terms of s.4(3)(d) that Joint Secretary & FAA had decided by order dated 22/02/22. The order had said in para-3.2.3 (iv) about CC-UIDAI that some documents may be available in Cabinet Secretariat records but it is for the sponsoring Ministries/Departments to decide timing and manner of their disclosure and in para-3.3 (i) that Notes for the 5 CC-UIDAI meetings held during 2010-2014 were forwarded by erstwhile Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog) and hence my request was transferred to NITI Aayog Decision dated 17/03/22 of NITI Aayog Sr Advisor (G&H) & FAA said UIDAI is no longer an attached office of the NITI Aayog, NITI Aayog is not custodian of records of the CC-UIDAI and information relating to it is not available in NITI Aayog, I ascertained that UIDAI is now attached to MEITY and made requested to it. MEITY transfer to UIDAI. Decision dated 11/05/22 of UIDAI DDG (Finance, Accounts and Legal) & FAA said that UIDAI is not the custodian of any Cabinet Committee documents. I applied again to MEITY. Decision dated 27/05/22 of CPIO DD (Egov) said that no records related to CC-UIDAI are available with Meity. All 3 said Decisions are reproduced in the attached document Now, please provide the following information:
1. The record keeping and retention policies for the Notes for and other records related to Cabinet Committees.
2. The particulars (date and file number) of the communications by which the Planning Commission forwarded the Notes for: (a) the 5 meetings of CC-UIDAI for which press releases dated 18/05/10, 22/07/10, 27/01/12, 09/05/13 and 04/02/14 are found on PIB website (under Other Cabinet Committees), and (b) the Approval of Phase-V for which press release dated 10/09/14 is accessible through Cabinet Secretariat website link for CCEA press releases.
3. For all Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI meaningful description (eg, by way of statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi), detailed with the information of the cataloguing and indexing u/s 4(1)(a) and identifying for each item precisely who is to decide when to make it public"Page 2 of 8
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2022 stating as under:
"A copy of reply sent vide letter dated 15.07.2022 is as under:
"1. The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section II.
2. The press releases available on the PIB website for the said dates are related to:
-Funding of Phase II of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) scheme
-Approval of funding of Phase III of the UIDAI
-Aadhar enrolments beyond 20 Crores
-Setting up of the National Skill Development Agency (NSDA)
-Approval to proposal for reallocation of States for Aadhar enrolment The above mentioned information sought by the applicant is not available with Administration Section, NITI Aayog. However, if applicant wishes to see any specific information/documents personally, she is requested to indicate her convenience to visit during office hours and if required, take copies of information/document such specific
3. The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section II."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 18.08.2022, held as under.
"1. I have seen the records of the RTI Application made available by CPIO & have also seen the contention of the applicant in the appeals. On perusal it was found that Admin II, NITI Aayog received RTI Application dated 05.07.2022, subsequently transferred by Cabinet Secretariat, and further transferred by CPIO (G&R) with reference to the Point 2 of the RTI that pertained to the Planning Commission's Notes (now NITI Aayog) regarding press releases dated 18/05/10, 22/07/10, 27/01/12, 09/05/13, 04/02/14 and 10/09/14. Accordingly, the suitable reply was furnished by Admin II to the RTI applicant vide reply dated 15.07.2022 wherein it was mentioned that "No such information is available with the records of Administration -II Section". As regards, the transfers of the RTI to other Public Authorities/other divisions of NITI Aayog are concerned; it is to inform that various Verticals/Divisions in NITI Aayog handle different subject matters. CPIO (Admin) transferred the RTI to other Page 3 of 8 verticals/Departments/Ministries with a view that these Public Authorities were more closely connected with the subject matter of RTI and would perhaps be in a position to furnish suitable reply to RTI dated 15.07.2022, particularly the UIDAI.
Further, multiple appeals were generated against the same RTI appeal due to technical error, hence the duplicate RTI Appeals were returned to the RTI cell, and accordingly disposed of, informing that the original RTI appeals (mentioned in para 1 above) will be dealt in due course of time. It has been mentioned by the applicant herself that RTI request was filed by her in duplicate by error.
As regards returning the RTI to CPIO (G&R) Vertical is concerned, if the RTI applicant is not satisfied with the reply of CPIO (G&R), she may file next appeal in accordance with RTI Act. Hence, there are no further comments to offer by CPIO (Admin II) and as per the text of the appeal, grounds of appeal against Admin II are found to be untenable.
2. Hence with the order, the first RTI Appeal No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00036 dated 19.07.2022 and PLCOM/A/E/22/00037 dated 19.07.2022, by Ms. Geeta Dewan Verma are disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Biswajeet M. Patnaik, Under Secretary and CPIO and Ms. Khushbu, SO present in person.
5. Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
6. During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated the contents of her second appeal and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"On 17/01/22 I had requested Cabinet Secretariat for information of the manner in which information was made public u/s 8(1)(i) after Cabinet Committee on UIDAI (CC-UIDAI) was discontinued in 2014. Cabinet Secretariat Page 4 of 8 transferred to NITI Aayog because Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog) had forwarded CC-UIDAI Notes. NITI Aayog FAA's decision dated 17/03/22 said that NITI Aayog is not the custodian of CC-UIDAI records and UIDAI is no longer its attached office. I had then applied to MEITY (to which UIDAI is now attached). MEITY transferred to UIDAI. UIDAI FAA's decision dated 11/05/22 said UIDAI has no CC-UIDAI documents. I had then applied again to MEITY. MEITY CPIO's decision dated 27/05/22 said that no CC-UIDAI records are available with MEITY. On 11/06/22, citing and enclosing the aforesaid decisions, I applied to Cabinet Secretariat for dates and file numbers of the communications by which Planning Commission forwarded CC-UIDAI Notes to Cabinet Secretariat (point-
2) and description of Cabinet Secretariat's CC-UIDAI records (point-3). My request got filed in duplicate (as No. CABST/R/E/22/00369 & 00370) in confusion over a payment gateway issue. Upon receiving 2 acknowledgement emails on 14/06/22, I brought my error to notice of Cabinet Secretariat that nevertheless processed in duplicate - with duplicate transfer dated 01 & 05/07/22 jointly to MEITY and NITI Aayog. This Appeal is regarding transfer No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 dated 05/07/22 of my request registration No. No. CABST/R/E/22/00369. FACTS: 1. Cabinet Secretariat's partial transfer No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 dated 05/07/22 said: For information relating to Point no. 2 and Point no. 3 part of the application are transferred to CPIO, MeitY and CPIO, NITI Aayog for response as they are best placed to consider the request for information on Cabinet matters based on the position if the matter is complete or over under first proviso to Section 8(1)(i) or any other provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. I appealed for process u/s 11. By email dated 11/07/22 I apprised NITI Aayog Nodal Officer and CPIO of duplicate transfer and appeal against transfer. Transfer No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024, Status showing forwarding to CPIO (G&R), my email dated 11/07/22, Request No. CABST/R/E/22/00369 and contents of its supporting document are indexed and reproduced in 'Copy of RTI Application'. 2. On 19/07/22 CPIO (Admn.II) disposed of PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 by letter dated 18/07/22 saying: "the information sought in the application has been examined that the contents of the RTI are same as that of RTI Application No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 dated 01/07/2022 and the requisite reply in respect of Adm.II Section, NITI Aayog is same as reply to RTI Application No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 dated 01/07/2022 which has been furnished to you vide NITI Aayog's letter of even no. dated 15.07.2022." Status Form of No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 and CPIO's letter dated 18/07/22 are reproduced, along with the letter dated 15/07/22 that transferred No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 to MEITY, UIDAI and 2 NITI Aayog CPIOs, in 'Copy of CPIO Reply'
3. CPIO (Admin.II), as CPIO (Pension), had also disposed of by the same letter dated 15/07/22 registration Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8. On 19/07/22 Page 5 of 8 I filed 5 identical appeals against the 5 disposals based on letter dated 15/07/22. Printout of my appeal No. PLCOM/A/E/22/00036 against disposal of No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 is reproduced in 'Copy of First Appeal'. 4. My 3 appeals before FAA for CPIO (Pension) were returned. My 2 appeals before FAA for CPIO (Admin.II) were rejected by order dated 18/08/22 that is uploaded for 'Copy of Order'. GROUNDS: A. The letter dated 18/07/22 of CPIO (Admin.II) admits noticing No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 was same as No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023. It does not say why the duplicate transfer was NOT RETURNED. B. In my appeal, duplicate transfer No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 & 24 was mentioned as under: The request was filed in duplicate by error. I brought that to notice of Cabinet Secretariat Nodal Officer, but both were disposed of including by making duplicate transfer of points2 & 3 to NITI Aayog vide No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 & 24 ... ... by email dated 11/07/22, I informed NITI Aayog Nodal Officer and CPIO (G&R) (to whom both transfers stood forwarded). Printout of my email is ATTACHED. FAA's order obfuscates the 'duplicate' issue by saying as under: [emphasis supplied] "Further, multiple appeals were generated against the same RTI appeal due to technical error, hence the duplicate RTI Appeals were returned to the RTI cell, and accordingly disposed of, informing the applicant that the original RTI appeals (mentioned in para 1 above) will be dealt in due course of time. It has been mentioned by the applicant herself that RTI request was filed by her in duplicate in error." I did not make duplicate transfer to NITI Aayog and FAA has not said what the filing of my request to Cabinet Secretariat has to do with NITI Aayog. That "multiple appeals were generated against the same RTI appeal by technical error" is false. I am not a robot and on 19/05/22 I had mindfully filed 5 appeals against 5 disposals registered by NITI Aayog on RTI Online in my name. FAA has not said how my 3 appeals before FAA (Pension) were all 'duplicate' and the 2 before him [against duplicate disposal of duplicate transfer] were both 'original' and yet disposable by single order. C. FAA's order is on two matters.
It mentions at the start both Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023 & 24 and both decisions dated 15/07/22 & 18/07/22 of CPIO, but upholds only one [emphasis FAA's]: "suitable reply was furnished to the RTI applicant vide reply dated 15.07.2022 wherein it was mentioned that "No such information is available with the records of AdministrationII Section". ... CPIO (Admin) transferred the RTI to other verticals/ Departments/ Ministries with a view that these Public Authorities were more closely connected with the subject matter of RTI and would perhaps be in a position to furnish suitable reply ...". FAA's order does not uphold CPIO's decision dated 18/07/22 that reiterated the NIL 'suitable reply' dated 15/07/22 without transferring No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 to others for 'suitable reply'.
D. In terms of the RTI Act, CPIO's letter dated 18/07/22 - that did NOT RETURN, did NOT TRANSFER and did NOT DECIDE No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 - is ILLEGAL Page 6 of 8 REFUSAL without cause. By not setting it aside, FAA has endorsed it - without cause and with rude mention of my error that both Cabinet Secretariat and NITI Aayog chose to perpetuate rather than to eliminate. E. No. PLCOM/R/X/22/00024 was a duplicate. My request was filed in duplicate by error. My error was bona fide and I had promptly brought it to notice of Cabinet Secretariat Nodal Officer and CPIO. Even if I had not, it was incumbent upon them to return the duplicate upon noticing it. They did not. Out of courtesy, I had also brought Cabinet Secretariat's duplicate transfer to notice of NITI Aayog Nodal Officer and CPIO. Even if I had not, it was incumbent upon them to return the duplicate upon noticing it. They did not. Instead, by a letter dated 18/07/22 that merely reiterated a letter already used to dispose of other RTI Online registrations, NITI Aayog registered on RTI Online for the statistically false duplicate transfer illegal and statistically false duplicate disposal."
7. The Appellant submitted that the information sought by her should be available with the Respondent Public Authority. She stated that she had also inspected the relevant records and the MeitY and UIDAI are not custodian of the records. She contended that the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet was formed by the erstwhile Planning Commission and the Respondent Public Authority is the successor of the Planning Commission. The Appellant suggests the Respondent Public Authority to search the information in all their verticals and simultaneously seek specific file Nos. from the Cabinet Secretariat and then search within the Public Authority in all their verticals.
8. The Respondent, during the hearing has agreed to search the records within their verticals and may also seek specific file Nos. from the Cabinet Secretariat.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that the Appellant's contentions have been placed on record in its entirety, therefore, to allay her apprehensions and to facilitate resolution of her long-standing cause by finding the concerned record holder and the records, the CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG is directed to revisit the matter and provide a combined single reply after consulting the CPIOs of concerned verticals within the Respondent Public Authority regarding the disclosure of such available information, if any, and provide a final reply to the Appellant. In doing so, the Page 7 of 8 CPIO, Nodal RTI Cell, NITI AYOG may approach the Cabinet Secretariat to seek specific file number of the information sought and search the records in all their verticals.
10. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
11. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, NITI Aayog, NITI Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)