Central Information Commission
Girish Mohan Ragi vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 27 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/PBSEC/A/2022/135005
Girish Mohan Ragi ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DY.DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRASAR
BHARATI SECRETARIAT,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL,
DOORDARSHAN, RTI CELL,
DOORDARSHAN BHAWAN, COPERNICUS
MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/04/2023
Date of Decision : 24/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 25/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 12/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 13/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/06/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"Kindly refer to your letter no-R-5/PRBHA/R/P/Misc./RTI/PBS/40 dated 04/03/2O22 returning therewith my letter dated 25/02/2022 as because RTI Fee IPO Rs-1O was not in order. Therefore a IPO No-51F 957117 for Rs-10/- in the name of DDA Prasar Bharati as RTI fee is attached as advised.
I would hereby, mention as per (attached Photo copy) Hindi Hindustan dated 02/03/1992, that 431 nos. of Serials were selected wherein serial in subject also found the place. letter No 5/7/97-PV dated 18/06/1997, (copy attached) add reference to this.
Secondly, I would like to know that exactly as and when the serial in question shall be allowed to telecast on Doordarshan.as it has taken longer period for considering the matter for telecast.
Let me also know that how many numbers of serials are at waiting to be telecasted out of 431 serials selected and how many left for telecast."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.03.2022 stating as under:
"The Applicant asking for information/record occurred beyond 20 years ago. Hence, under section 8(3) it is exempted from disclosure of information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 13.05.2022 observed that- "On perusal of the relevant record it is observed that Rule 8(3) does not prohibit providing the information which is more than 20 years old. As such, the concerned DPIO is directed to furnish the available information to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the order."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the DPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 20.06.2022 stating as under:-
A (a) The proposal of programme titled "Sun Re Dhol Bahu Ke Bol" was submitted in 1990s. Most of the records of that period weeded out and not presently available. Therefore, it is not feasible to provide information of that period.2
(b) The records of that period is not available.
(c ) The records of that period is not available therefore, under circumstances, it may not be feasible to answer applicant's query the number of serial were selected and left out.
(d) The proposal submitted under Sponsored Category are considered on merit and in the present scenario vis-a-vis requirement of channel.
(e) The producer's serial is of older period, therefore, at now, it may also be not feasible to comment upon when his serial may be taken for consideration and telecast.
B (i) Further, in supersession of all previous guidelines, new/revised sponsorship Guidelines were issued and are effective from 01.07.2004.
(ii) The proposal submitted by the producer in the 1990s, may not be befit in the existing guidelines and in the present scenario.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"A: (a) This para does not specifically provide whether the record of the proposal of "SunreDholBahukeBol" was not weeded out by the concerned officer of Doordarsan Parasar Bharti. lf, Yes, why a proper procedure and care not adopted with regard to proposals. lf screen play and story line is required by Doordarshan, are sufficiently available with the producer. Hence you may get it without any hesitation to work out further.
(b) This para has already been taken in view by sh. Shankar Dhar and replied.
(c&d) As per the attached cuttings of Hindi Hindustan newspaper and other sources, 431 proposals out of 3544 were accepted by Doordarshan which was a prominent major project of Doordarshan. Therefore, how a negligent step could be taken to weed out all the records until it was finished and completely meet out. ln screening the project due consideration would have been paid in all respect of rules and other merits, scenarios, etc. Thus, the concerned officer cannot deny it without evidence altogether as it was kept on hold.
E) How can we ignore our ancestral! wisdom and words shed for socio- economic and upliftment of society. In the modern technique, stories can be produced in a refined and interesting way by the Direction of imagination.
B(1) kindly supply me new/revised guidelines w.e.f 01/02/2004 for sponsorship (2) Vague answer is denied"
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: D P Singh, CPIO along with Ashesh Kumar, CAPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the Second Appeal as mentioned above.
The CPIO submitted that- "On receipt of the instant CIC hearing notice, the matter was examined again and it is intimated that the available information based on the inputs received from concerned DPIO was already provided to the applicant and nothing is pending with DG: DD on such an old matter. The appellant in his Second Appeal with Hon'ble CIC has questioned on the procedure adopted on the old proposal as well as on the weeding of old records by Doordarshan. This has no relevance as far as the information sought by him under RTI Act 2005 is concerned. Further, seeking additional information (other than those sought in his original RTI Application) at this stage by the appellant (for providing revised guidelines w.e.f. 01.02.2004 for sponsorship) is not permitted and therefore not obligatory to provide the same to him."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant matter is not as much about seeking access to information as much it is about seeking redressal of a grievance as the underlying premise of the instant appeal is to allow the averred show to be telecasted on television. As far as the RTI Act is concerned, the Commission finds that although the original reply of the CPIO was grossly incorrect, but upon the FAA's direction, the CPIO provided a factual and appropriate reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has challenged the factual merits of the said revised reply of the CPIO while urging for his grievance to be redressed.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.4
For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to 5 why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) 6 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7