Central Information Commission
Kanika Gupta vs Defence Research And Development ... on 2 March, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DRADO/C/2020/126595
In the matter of
Kanika Gupta
... Complainant
VS
CPIO
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Centre for Fire, Explosive & Environment Safety (CFEES),
Brig S K Mazumdar Marg, Timarpur, Delhi - 110054.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/06/2020 CPIO replied on : 16/06/2020 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2020 Complaint Filed on : 29/08/2020 Date of Hearing : 02/03/2022 Date of Decision : 02/03/2022 The following were present: Complainant : Not present
Respondent: Dr P K Rai, Scientist G & CPIO alongwith B S Yadav, Joint Director and Ms Anushree Tomer, all present over intra VC Information Sought:
The complainant has stated that she has been victim of domestic violence, attempt to rape and violation of Human Rights Act committed by Shri NK Bansal Scientist" G', working in CFEES, DRDO, Brig. SK Mazumdar Marg, Delhi. She has made a request to Director, CFEES to take appropriate disciplinary action against Mr. Bansal. In this context, she has sought the following information:1
1. Name, designation and office address of the officials to whom the matter has been allotted for further action. Provide copies of the relevant documents in this regard.
2. Details of action taken in the matter so far.
3. Details of action taken by Director, CFEES in the matter.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information claiming exemption under Sec.(24)(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant was not present to plead her case despite service of hearing notice on 11.02.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED038546285IN. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that she is aggrieved that the CPIO refused to provide the information on the grounds that under Sec 24(1) of the RTI Act, no information other than that relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation need be given, as DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the said Act.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply already given and again reiterated the fact that the organization is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is exempted from disclosure of information under Sec 24(1) of the said Act.
Observations:
From a perusal of the records of this case, the Commission is in agreement with the CPIO that the information cannot be provided on the grounds given by the CPIO in his reply and this is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Further, it is found apt to draw the attention of the appellant to an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-2
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".
In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged and this is not the case here.
Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is warranted.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3