Central Information Commission
P P M Ashraf vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 22 September, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint Nos. CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/637746
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/637782
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/600282
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/600312
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/643843
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/647347
CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/659786
Shri P P M Ashraf िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Legal Affairs ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri R K Chaudhary - ALA and
Shri Lal Chand Dabaria - ALA
Date of Hearing : 22.09.2021
Date of Decision : 22.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
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 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
637746 27.10.2018 30.10.2018 30.10.2018 16.11.2018 Nil
637782 11.09.2018 12.10.2018 12.10.2018 16.11.2018 Nil
600282 15.10.2018 - 30.12.2018 15.02.2019 Nil
600312 12.12.2018 - - - Nil
643843 04.01.2018 12.06.2018 12.05.2019 11.06.2019 Nil
647347 25.04.2019 10.06.2019 - - Nil
659786 03.04.2019 04.04.2019 - - Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/637746 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2018 stating as follows:Page 1 of 10
As the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to DoPT and D/o Legal Affairs, the application is being transferred to these Departments in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for furnishing the available information/response to the applicant.
Reproduced verbatim The CPIO vide online reply dated 30.10.2018 disposed of the RTI application with the remark that no specific information has been sought.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2018. The FAA vide online order dated 16.11.2018 informed the Appellant that the first appeal had been transferred to the concerned FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions dated 15.09.2021 has been received from the ALA/CPIO Dept. of Legal Affairs stating that "inspite of trying to open the online status of the RTI application the same is not opening and showing no result for this action.....on scrutiny of the RTI application and enclosures it has been found that the Appellant has sought information relating to Article 77 which deals with the conduct of business of the Government of India and Article 166 of the Constitution of India which deals with the conduct of business of the Government of the State and Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.
That as per Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 the basic function of the Department of Legal Affairs is to, inter alia, tender advice to Ministries/Departments of Government of India on Legal matters. That since this Department was not concerned with the information sought by the Appellant; the RTI was transferred back to DOP&T for furnishing information directly to the appellant.
(2) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/637782 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2018 stating as follows:
"When MEMBERS OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OPPOSED the CONFEERING OF POWERS on PRESIDENT or GOVERNOR for appointment of OFFICERS OF JUDICIARY stating that IT WILL LEAD to OBLIGING the JUDICIARY to FAVOUR the APPOINTING AUTHORITY.The OPPOSITION NULLED by DR Ambedkar as under
Constituent Assembly Debates Constituent Assembly Page 2 of 10 Debates On 24 May, 1949 Part II Hon Dr B R Ambedkar The judiciary decides cases in which the Government has, if at all, the remotest interest, in fact no interest at all. The judiciary is engaged in deciding the issue between citizens and very rarely between citizens and the Government. Consequently the chances of influencing the conduct of a member of the judiciary by the Government are very remote, and my personal view, therefore, is that the provision which are applied to the Federal Public Services Commission have no place so far as the judiciary is concerned. Besides there are very many cases where the employment of judicial talent in a specialised form is very necessary for certain purposes. Take the case of our Friend Shri Varadachariar. He has now been appointed members of a Commission investigating income-tax questions. The Constitutional provision was that cases involving citizens is to be disposed by adherence to A O B and T O B Rules being advice of COUNCIL OF MINISTERS and if THERE IS A DEADLOCK to refer the CASE TO PEOPLES COURT i.e. PARLIAMENT and LEGISLATURE who appoints COMMITTEES to RESOLVE CASES.At present to create a financial paradise to ADVOCATE and to SHARE FEES with HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS CASES INVOLVING EXECUTIVE and CITIZENS is thrown on the FLOOR of COURTS.Please inform us the AUTHORITY who TOOK DECISION to REFER CASES to COURTS instead of ADOPTING AOB TOB PROCEDURE as PDF file attached confirms that DEPARTMENT HEADS WANTS to SHARE FEES WITH ADVOCATES by BOYCOTTING AOB TOB PROCEDURE.
Reproduced verbatim The CPIO vide online reply dated 12.10.2018 replied as under:-
It is informed that as per general practice, the Ministry/Department concerned would first examine the subject matter at its own level to decide whether to proceed with filing a case or appeal in any matter. In case, the matter involves the interest of any other Ministry/Department, the comments/views of the same will be sought. Thereafter, the Ministry/Department concerned would consult the Ministry of Law & Justice for advice in the matter. After receiving the advice, the Ministry/Department concerned would accordingly take its decision regarding the litigation.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2018. The FAA vide online order dated 16.11.2018 disposed of the Appeal holding that the information has been provided by the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.Page 3 of 10
(3) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/600282 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated15.10.2018 stating as follows:-
"THIS HAS REFERENCE TO MOLAW R 2018 80271 TRANSFERRED BY CABINET SECRETARIAT AS WELL AS DOPT TO DLA ON THE INFORMATION ASTO WHO AUTHORISED COURT PROCEDUREIN PLACE OF AOB TOB PROCEDURE IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS.THE REPLY IS AS UNDER IT IS INFORMED THAT AS PER GENERAL PRACTICE .............TAKE ITS DECISION REGARDING LITIGATION. IT IS INFORMED THAT BEFORE FILING A CASE IN COURT INSTEAD OF REFERRING THE DEADLOCK TO THE HOUSE WHICH APPOINTED THE COUNCIL WHOSE ADVICE IS AOB TOB PROCEDURE MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE ADVICE IS SOUGHT.
1.PLEASE GIVE REFERENCE NUMBER OF RECENT 10 COURT CASES OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS WHO SOUGHT THE ADVICE OF MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE BEFORE FILING A CASE IN COURT AND PLEASE INFORM WHAT ADVICE MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE GAVE.
2.PLEASE GIVE THE NAMES OF MINISTRIES QUOTED BY THESE BANKS WHO WERE CONSULTED BEFORE FILING THE CASE WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE PROFORMA OF ADVICE SOUGHT FROM MINISTRY OF LAW JUSTICE AS REPLIED BY MOLAW VIDE MOLAW R 2018 80271.AN ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION TO CABINET SECRETARIAT IS ATTACHED HEREWITH GIVING EXPLANATION BY DR. B R AMBEDKAR IS ATTACHED AS PDF.
Reproduced verbatim This RTI application was forwarded to multiple Public Authorities.
Having not received information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2018. The FAA vide online order dated 15.02.2019 stated that the CPIO has already transferred appellant's RTI application to the concerned CPIOs of Advice-A, B & C Section of this Department on 16.10.2018. Therefore, Appellant may contact the concerned CPIO/First Appellate Authority of Central Agency Section.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(4) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/600312 (5) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/643843 The Complainant filed identical RTI applications dated 12.12.2018 & 04.01.2019 stating as follows:-Page 4 of 10
In reply to RTI application MOLAW R 2018 80271 Department of Legal affairs Judicial section replied that COURT PROCEDURE is ADOPTED in place of AOB TOB PROCEDURE as a GENERAL PRACTICE.As per ruling of Hon SC in Delhi international Airport versus International Lease finance the definition of central government is given as PRESIDENT ADVISED by AO B TO B procedure and state government is given as governor advised by AOB TOB procedure issued under article 77 or article 166 respectively. In acts of parliament and legislative assembly the framing of rules regulation notification and other statutory instrument is to be made with central government sanction or state government sanction .Thus AOB TOB procedure is a PROCEDURE dictated by parliament and Legislative Assembly and GENERAL PRACTICE of APPROACHING a COURT of Law will be belittling the parliament and Legislative Assembly in front of the COURT and CITIZENS .This is important because the MOTION to EMPOWER the PRESIDENT and GOVERNOR in the APPOINTMENT of JUDICIARY was VOTED BY MEMBERS of CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the ASSURANCE TO VOTERS THAT MINISTERS who are ALLOCATED the BUSINESS under article 77 or 166 will adopt a procedure put in place by LEGISLATURE extended by the council of Ministers and MINISTERS who are BUSINESS HEADS will not sanction a COURT CASE by BOYCOTT of Procedure dictated by the parliament or Legislature being AOB TOB procedure.
1.Please inform whether sanction of the COUNCIL OF MINISTERS was there for ADOPTING THE GENERAL PRACTICE of COURT PROCEDURE in place AOB TOB procedure of the Parliament and Legislative assembly since Department of Legal Affairs confirmed that COURT procedure is adopted as GENERAL Practice as AOB TOB procedure is Monitored by council of Ministers Collectively responsible to the House of People or Legislative assembly.
Reproduced verbatim The RTI application was forwarded to other Public Authorities. Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2019. The FAA vide online order dated 11.06.2019 directed the CPIO to provide information available with him.[CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/643843] The CPIO, Department of Legal Justice vide online reply dated 12.06.2019 informed as under:-
No information with regard to your query is available with this Section. It is also informed that you have wrongly interpreted the information provided by this CPIO in reply to your application No. :
MOLAW/R/2018/80271. The CPIO did not mention anything about --Page 5 of 10
Court Procedure-- in the reply. This CPIO is not responsible for the applicants wrongful interpretation of the information provided.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(6) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/647347 (7) CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/659786 The Complainant filed an RTI applications dated 25.04.2019& 03.04.2019 seeking information on following point:-
-
Reproduced verbatim Page 6 of 10 The CPIO, Department of Legal Justice vide online replies dated 10.06.2019& 04.04.2019 rejected the application stating the reason for rejection is duplicate entry.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 01.09.2021 has been received from the Dept. of Legal Affairs stating that the RTI application dated 25.04.2019 in CIC/DOLAF/C/2019/647347 had been duly responded by the PIO vide reply dated 23.05.2019 and First Appeal dated 20.06.2019 was duly adjudicated by FAA's order dated 19.11.2019. Copies of relevant documents have been annexed with the submission.
Written submissions dated 08.09.2021 and 14.09.2021 have been received from the Dept. of Legal Affairs and Dept. of Justice whereby both authorities seem to have transferred the RTI application to each other.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the request of the Complainant, the matters were heard through audio conference, All relevant parties are heard through audio conference wherein the Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the reply furnished by the Respondent in the abovementioned cases. The Respondents on the other hand contended that in most of cases, the information sought by the Applicant was not clear. Accordingly, reply was provided to the Applicant from available official records as permissible under the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that there has been no deliberate denial or concealment of information on their part, in any of the aforementioned cases.
Decision:
Since the information sought in the above Complaints are similar, hence the cases are hereby decided by a common order.
Perusal of the above Complaints reveals that the queries raised by the Complainant are not precise nor do they pertain to specific information. In fact the nature of queries in most of the cases clearly do not refer to any specific information held in the official records of any particular public authority. The queries are vague, ambiguous and refer to generic and imprecise information, which is not held by the Respondent in question. Notwithstanding, such a situation, the Respondents have attempted to answer the queries with whatever information they hold. The cases mentioned hereinabove do not meet the criteria laid out under the RTI Act for filing of Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, as enshrined under clause (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act, as follows:Page 7 of 10
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.
While dealing with the facts of these six complaints, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer to the Apex Court's decision in the case of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Others, [Civil Appeal No. 7571/2011] decided on 02.09.2011, observed that:
"it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
The above position has once again been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in greater details in decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case of Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. as follows:
"...37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of Page 8 of 10 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. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Upon deliberating upon the ratio of the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court, the Commission is convinced that the above cases do not merit any further adjudication.
Furthermore, the Commission wishes to place reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court, by Justice Vipin Sanghi in the case of Registrar Of Companies & Ors vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr dated 1 June, 2012:
"It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show- cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If Page 9 of 10 the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
In the light of the above position discussed at length, the Commission is not inclined to interfere with the responses sent by the Respondent in the above cases and also opines that the Complaints are not maintainable as such under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
The cases are disposed off, with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
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 10 of 10