Central Information Commission
Dhananjay Kr Jha vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 23 February, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeals No. CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/166352
CIC/MH&FW/A/2019/106096
Shri Dhananjay Kr Jha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Addl. DDG (AM), Directorate General of ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Health Services, NCD Section, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
2. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
(Mental Health Division), Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
Through: Dr. Megha Khobragade - Assistant
Director General, Sh. R K Jalan - SO, Mental
Health, Dr. Ravinder Singh - Scientist, ICMR
Date of Hearing : 22.02.2021
Date of Decision : 23.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
166352 06.04.2018 18.04.2018 09.05.2018 21.05.2018 09.11.2018
106096 09.10.2018 13.11.2018 04.12.2018 27.12.2018 11.02.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/166352 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.04.2018 seeking information on 35 points, inter alia:
1. Whether you apply sound to the brain of person which affect the mind and body of person from outside, in disturbing, even maddening from putting sounds in people's head or not? Or whether inter cerebral hearing is used Page 1 of 5 to drive the subject mad, as no one else can hear the voices transmitted into the brain of the subject or not? Or whether this could disruptive and psychologically devastating to a person unaware of the technical effect, which would seems like a voice inside his or her head or not?
2. Whether U.S. patented technology is able to used as a pair of electrodes applied to a person's head to inject speech into the head of a person or not? Theory, and detailed descriptions of specific techniques, is available in any of U.S. Patent Number 3,629,521; 4,858,612 and 4,877,027.
3. Whether technology (Patent Number 3,393,279, dated 07.07.1968) causing a person to receive an aural perception of the sound corresponding to the audio modulation of radio frequency electromagnetic waves that are couple with the nervous system of the person or a person can listen to an audio single that .cannot be heard by other person or not? Theory, and detailed descriptions of specific techniques, is available in U.S. patent Number 3,393,279.
4. Whether it is possible that sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves in the range of 100 megahertz to 10,000 megahertz that are modulated with a particular waveform. The waveform consists of frequency modulated bursts. Each burst is made up of 10 to 20 uniformly spaced pulses grouped tightly together. The burst width is between 500 nanoseconds and 100 microseconds. The pulse width is in the range of 10 nanoseconds to 1 microsecond. The bursts are frequency modulated by the audio input to create the sensation of hearing in the person whose head is irradiated or not? Theory, and detailed descriptions of specific techniques, is available in U.S. patent Number 4,877,027 issued on 31.10.1989
5. Whether autonomic and cortical resonances of the nervous system can be excited by inducing subliminal heat pulses in the skin by means of microwave radiation or not? Or whether deeply subliminal skin temperature oscillations of frequency near 1/2 Hz induced in a subject by above means cause sleepiness, drowsiness, relaxation, a tonic smile, ptosis of the eyelids, a tense feeling, sudden loose stool, or sexual excitement in the subject or not? Orwhether certain higher frequencies inducedsubliminal skin temperature oscillations cause fractured thought and a slowing of certain cortical processes of the subject or not? Theory, and detailed descriptions of specific techniques, is available in, U.S. Patent Number 5,800,481 issued on dated 01.09.1998.Etc. The CPIO, Directorate General of Health Services, (NCD Section), Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.04.2018 stating that the information sought is not available in the section.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2018. The FAA vide order dated 21.05.2018 observed that RTI application was transferred to DGHS for providing a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.04.2018 and the Appellant was informed accordingly, vide letter dated 12.04.2018. The FAA further held that as per RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is supposed to provide information as defined in sub-section (f) of Section 2 of RTI Act, 2005 subject to the provision of section 8 of the said Act. Since the Page 2 of 5 information sought by the Appellant was not available in the section, the reply provided by the CPIO in respect of Mental Health Section was reiterated.
Another communication dated 24.05.2018 from the DDG(MH-IH) is found on record whereby the National Mental Health Programme stated that the information sought was not held by them and hence transferred the RTI application and Appeal to ICMR, keeping the Appellant informed about the transfer.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission has been received from Consultant, Mental Health, vide letter dated 27.07.2020 mentioning that the RTI was transferred to the DGHS vide letter dated 12.04.2018 and the First Appeal was disposed off vide order dated 21.05.2018.
Written submission has been received from CPIO/Asst. DG, DGHS, NCD Section vide letter dated 31.07.2020 and 15.02.2021 reiterating the above mentioned facts.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant states that his queries relate to a patented technology and hence information in this regard should be available with some public authority.
Respondent states that information sought by the Appellant is not available as such because their sphere of activity includes policy making and implementation of welfare programmes for various diseases. Research in medical field is the domain of ICMR and hence the RTI application was transferred to ICMR.
Respondent from ICMR submitted a note stating that: the questions raised by the Appellant are related to para-psychology and non-science areas, which are beyond normal parameters of science. It has also been contended by the Respondent from ICMR that since no study was carried out on the topics mentioned by the Appellant in his RTI application, no specific information could be furnished to the Appellant.
Decision In the light of the facts discussed above and the perusal of records of the case, it is evident that the queries raised by the Appellant could not be answered by the Respondents, since no such data exists for such hypothetical queries, nor can Page 3 of 5 the same be responded to under the RTI Act. The Commission finds no requirement of further adjudication in this case.
(2) CIC/MH&FW/A/2019/106096 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2018 seeking information on 7 points, inter alia:
1. Please provide me informationthat what action taken by ICMR, Department of Health Research & Mental Health Division of Ministry of Health Family 'Welfare, Govt. of India in "Burari Suicide Case of New Delhi", in which 11 people of one family from 3 different generations have committed suicide?
This is not an ordinary case. (For reference, case FIR No. 308/18 u/s 302 IPC PS Burari, Delhi).
2. Please provide me all scientific reports including medical and all other reports in Burari Suicide Case.
3. Please provide me the Report of Psychiatrist & Neurophysiologist and reasons of death or under what circumstances 11 people of one family from 3 different generations had committed suicide? Etc. The CPIO, Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi transferred the application to ICMR, Delhi vide letter dated 12.11.2018.
The CPIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2018 stating as under:
"It is to intimate you that your RTI application dated 09.10.2018 seeking information/action taken and supporting documents in respect of Burari Suicide Case of New Delhi has been received in Mental Health Section of this Ministry. In this connection it is informed that no reference has been received in this Section from any department/agency of Govt. of India or from Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Therefore, there is no information in the Section to provide you, as sought in your application."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2018.
The CPIO, ICMR, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.12.2018 stating that the desired information does not fall under the purview of ICMR.
The FAA, MoHFW vide order dated 27.12.2018 observed that the application was transferred to ICMR. It is therefore, informed that the FAA in this regard will be in the ICMR. Appellant may like to approach them directly.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 5Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 27.07.2020 have been received from the Ministry of Health, Mental Health Division reiterating the facts mentioned hereinabove.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties are heard at length and during their deliberations, it transpired that information as sought by the Appellant does not exist on records as already replied by the Respondents.
Decision:
It is a settled position of law that the RTI Act ensures access to all information that is available and existing, and as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Perusal of records of the case and averments of the parties indicate that information on queries raised by the Appellant does not exist on record and the Respondent has responded as such to the Appellant. The Appellant's dissatisfaction with the response provided to him stems from his perceived grievance, which cannot be addressed through the RTI Act.
The Commission is confined to adjudicate issues relating to supply of information, as available in the records of the public authority and is not the appropriate authority for redressal of grievance/s of the Appellant. Accordingly, no further action is warranted in this case.
The appeals are 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 5 of 5