Central Information Commission
Nischal Goyal vs University Of Delhi on 2 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ADIMV/A/2017/602458-BJ
Mr. Nischal Goyal
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
The PIO
Aditi Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi)
Delhi Auchandi Road
Bawana, Delhi - 110039
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.11.2018
Date of Decision : 02.11.2018
Date of RTI application 15.11.2016
CPIO's response 23.12.2016
Date of the First Appeal 14.01.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 03.02.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding the name of the convenor of the college website maintenance committee, whether convenor of college website maintenance committee checked the manual no. 06 according to the rules and regulation before uploading the information on the college website and issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.12.2016 stated that the information sought was voluminous in nature and that the college would need to hire a clerk and office attendant to compile the same since they did not have the staff to take the additional workload. The Appellant was requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as cost for the payment of one month salary to Clerk and Office Attendant and photocopying charges at Rs. 2/- page for 5000 pages of documents. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.02.2017 while stating that the CPIO had already provided a response offered inspection of documents to the Appellant since the information sought was voluminous in nature. It was also stated that the papers sought by the Appellant would be provided at Rs. 2/- page. HEARING:
Page 1 of 8Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Nischal Goyal;
Respondent: Dr. Archana Sawshilya, Asst. Prof. / Authorised person, Mr. Ashutosh Aggarwal, SO and Mr. V. P. Tiwari, AO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information was not provided within the time stipulated under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was also alleged that the PIO/ FAA provided false and contradictory response. In its reply, the Respondent (Dr. Archana Sawshilya, Asst. Prof.), at the outset tendered her unconditional apology for the delay in response and attributed it to the non-appointment of CPIO to deal with RTI applications. It was however submitted that as soon as the CPIO was deputed, a response was provided to the Appellant. On being queried regarding the status of disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant relating to the details of the convenor of the college website maintenance committee, number of RTI applications/ First Appeals received by them, details of the chemicals received by the college for use in the chemical lab, details of officers/ members of the medical committee on their website, etc, the Respondent while submitting that voluminous information was being sought by the Appellant, admitted the existence of mismanagement of its website due to lack of technical assistance and submitted that since December, 2017, they had started the process to update their website. It was also articulated that since the completion of the term of the then Principal in 1999, no Permanent Principal was appointed in their college until 2015 as a result of which the record keeping of documents relating to General Body Minutes of Meeting and Audit Reports were in a pathetic state and that the physical verification of records was underway. The Appellant, in turn argued that the larger public interest was involved in the disclosure of information since it related to generic matters which should have been suo motu disclosed on their website. Explaining that similar information was provided to him by other colleges affiliated to the Delhi University, it was argued that in Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5699 Penalty-I dated 24.11.2009, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the then Principal of the College for delay in complying with the orders of the Commission to upload budget related information on their website. It was also alleged that no item wise account of consumable stock was being maintained by the college which was acknowledged by the Delhi University in its report. On being queried regarding the details of the present Principal and the date of appointment, the Respondent conveyed that Dr. Mamta Sharma was appointed as the Principal in the month of July, 2015 and is functioning till date.
The Commission at the outset observed that information sought should be suo motu disclosed by the Respondent Public Authority on their website for the ease and convenience of the public at large. It was felt that voluntary disclosure of all the information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:Page 2 of 8
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Page 3 of 8Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
A reference can also be made to the extract of the OM No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T regarding implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words. RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to the personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, as they do not serve any public interest."
In this context another OM issued by the DoPT F. No. 1/1/2013-IR dated 07.10.2016 can also be cited wherein it was stated as under:
"Now keeping in view the directions dated 20.11.2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in Writ Petition No. 33290/ 2013 in the case of Mr. Avishek Goenka vs. Union of India regarding personal details of RTI applicants, it is clarified that while proactively disclosing RTI applications and appeals received and responses thereto, the personal details of the RTI applicant/ appellant should not be disclosed as they do not serve any public interest. It is further clarified that the personal details would include name, designation, address, email id and telephone no. including mobile no. of the applicant."
Thus, taking into consideration the aforementioned decisions and the OMs issued by the DoP&T, the information ought to have be disclosed to the Appellant. Furthermore, the Commission was appalled to learn about the pitiable state of record keeping within the public authority and felt that there was an urgent need to develop a robust system of record keeping in the Respondent Public Authority and to review its efficaciousness periodically. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, W.P.(C) 3660/2012 dated 13.09.2013 wherein the Court had in a matter where inquiry was ordered by the Commission observed as under:
"6............It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was Page 4 of 8 never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act."
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Chandravadan Dhruv vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, Special Civil Application No. 2398 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 held as under:
"24. Since the issue raised by the petitioner is of a vital public importance, we, on our own, made a little research on the subject and found that the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India has constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. As a part of this Task Force, IT for Change is facilitating a sub group on 'Guidelines for Digital Publication under RTI supporting Proactive Disclosure of Information'. As a part of the work of this sub-group a one day consultation was held on the said subject i.e. 'Formulating guidelines for digital publication under RTI supporting proactive disclosure of information' in Bengaluru.
25.3 How to ensure proper record keeping?
• The required level of proactive disclosure is not possible without appropriate record keeping, and this aspect needs focused attention. There are detailed rules for record keeping and they should be strictly followed and the scheme for it should be published. Record keeping practices may have to be reviewed from the point of view of comprehensive proactive disclosure requirements, especially through digital means.
• Section 4.1.a is very clear about the need for proper record keeping, inducing in digital and networked form. Funds should be earmarked for digitizing records. Complete details of all records that are maintained and available digitally, and about those which are not, with due justification thereof, should be published. Annual Page 5 of 8 reports on compliance with section 4.1.a should be sought by the Information Commissions.
• The costs involved in digitizing resources and maintaining networked computer based record-keeping and information systems is often cited as a major deterrent. It was felt that it is no longer a major issue. India is at par or better in terms of IT issues than many developed countries that maintain high standards of digital publishing of public information. The real cost is in terms human resources, including skills, and these are easily available at all levels in India today.
• An example was given about how a government office in Bangalore was able to scan all its documents at a very low cost. Another example that was discussed was of 'Bhoomi' project in Karnataka, whereby, it was contended that, if open public access to such complex spatial data as the land records of the entire state can be ensured, how can giving access to all textual documents of an office or department be any more difficult."
Moreover, on closer perusal of the reply given to the RTI application, the Commission was appalled to learn about the callousness exhibited by the CPIO in providing information by raising queries without attending to its own administrative lapses. The reply indicated absolute disregard and disrespect to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to facilitate transparency and free flow of information.
In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."Page 6 of 8
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The Central Information Commission has brought to the notice of this Department that officers of some of the public authorities do not behave properly with the persons who seek information under the RTI Act. The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary. While providing information or rendering help to a person, it is important to be courteous to the information seeker and to respect his dignity."
During the hearing the Respondent cited various administrative lacunae and constraints for implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 which require urgent deliberation and rectification. The Commission was appalled to learn about the manner in which the RTI applications were handled by the Respondent Public Authority which indicated that there was complete negligence and laxity in the Public Authority in dealing with the RTI matters. It was abundantly clear that such matters were being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflected disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. During the hearing, the CPIO was unable to give any reasons for the delay in providing the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as also the observations made hereinabove, the Commission instructs the Vice Chancellor, University of Page 7 of 8 Delhi to depute a responsible official of appropriate seniority not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to examine the matter and submit its report to the Appellant fixing responsibility on the delinquent officer under intimation to the Commission within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission was appalled to learn about the recalcitrant attitude of the CPIO who had dealt with the RTI application in a casual and callous manner. The CPIO is therefore cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The Commission was deeply concerned about the abysmal condition of record keeping within the Public Authority. The Principal was therefore advised to look into the inherent weaknesses in the administrative functioning of the Public Authority Officials and to initiate corrective measures in this regard in the larger interest of the students and the public at large. The conduct of the Respondent exposed the wrong doings and poor administrative structure prevailing in the Respondent Public Authority which would be inimical to the interest of the academic and administrative functioning of the authority. Hence extraordinary measures need to be initiated to remedy the same expeditiously.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 02.11.2018
Copy to:
1- The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 2- The Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, North Campus, Delhi-110007 3- Dr. Mamta Sharma, Principal, Aditi Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi) Auchandi Road, Bawana, Delhi - 110039 Page 8 of 8