Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ragini Sachan vs National Human Rights Commission on 31 March, 2023

                                के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                         नई द ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHRCM/A/2022/620064

Ms. Ragini Sachan                                            ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
NHRC

Date of Hearing                      :    27.03.2023
Date of Decision                     :    31.03.2023
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   14.01.2022
PIO replied on                        :   09.02.2022
First Appeal filed on                 :   10.02.2022
First Appellate Order on              :   24.02.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   05.04.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.01.2022 seeking information on following point:-

I have filed a complaint against BSA Kanpur Dehat, Shri Sunil Dutt on NHRC which was assigned diary number as 18858/IN/2021 after assessment same was assigned Case No.- 36082/24/79/2021. But case was dismissed by giving clause 9 i.e Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. matter is covered by a judicial verdict/ decision of the Commission.

Kindly give explanation on following point.

1) I have not filed any case till date with any court or any commission except NHRC so how NHRC case can be dismissed by giving logic that matter is covered by judicial verdict or commission decision?

When I have not filed any case in court or commission how it is covered by its judicial verdict or decision.

The diary number 18858/IN/2021 is attached herewith.

The PIO /Dy. Registrar(Law), NHRC, New Delhi vide letter dated 09.02.2022 intimated as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.02.2022. The FAA/Jt. Registrar(Law) vide order dated 24.02.2022 stated as under:-

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.

The Respondent represented by Shri T Raveendran, Consultant (SO) and Shri Bikram Singh, ASO participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Raveendran reiterated his written submission dated 14.03.2023 wherein it was stated that the proceedings of the NHRC are deemed to be judicial proceedings u/s 13 (5) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and it is outside the purview of the CPIO to give comments on the decision of the Commission. Furthermore, the FAA vide its order has also clarified to the Appellant that the judicial verdict referred in the proceedings dated 02.11.2021 is the decision of SHRC, UP in Complaint Dy No 3096/IN/2021 which was dismissed by the SHRC on 16.10.2021 Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3