Central Information Commission
Vishal Rathour vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 17 May, 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/2022/652549
Vishal Rathour ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DDG, Prasar Bharati, RTI Cell,
Prasar Bharati House,
Copernicus Marg, New
Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/05/2023
Date of Decision : 10/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 15/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 26/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 09/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.07.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. A copy of the approval and or order along with noting portions of the concerned file hiring Sh. Ashish Bhardwaj and Ms. Noori Qureshi as Data Entry Operator in DCS and Sh. Gourav, Casual MTS working in Doordarshan Commercial Service.
2.A copy of guidelines/procedure to hire Data Entry Operators in Doordarshan.
3. A copy of order and noting portion indicating approval by competent authority to hire above said staff and their posting in Doordarshan Commercial Service may be provided.
4. The selection procedure and qualification required and adopted for selection of Data Entry Operators in Doordarshan and especially in DCS may also be provided?
5. A copy of the office order and or note portion vide which above said contractual staffs are working in DCS may be provided. The date of joining in DCS and internal posting order may also be provided, 6, The remuneration being paid to above three staffs and details of services/works done since joining till date by the above staff may also be provided.
7. To check the nepotism/corrupt practices, the information on policy and or system/procedure being folloed for strict compliance of transparency during selection of DEOs and other contractual staffs in DG:Doordarshan may be provided.
8. Reason behind the compulsion, influence and pressure made by DDG:DCS and others to accommodate and accept Sh. Ashish Bhardwaj and Ms. Noori Qureshi as Data Entry Operator in DCS even after they were found unsuitable for CAS work of Doordarshan Commercial Services and sent back. Correspondence/Note portions in this regard may please be provided."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 15.07.2022 stating as under:
"Point No.1 The said outsourced staff has not been hired by Doordarshan directly and has been engaged through a private agency who has been awarded a contract duly approved by competent authority for providing outsourced staff as per the requirement raised by DG:DD(including DCS) & DD News.2
Point No.2 The DEOs are outsourced through the Agency via Govt. E-Marketplace (GeM) portal. For more information related to guidelines/procedure visit website https://gem.gov.in/.
Point No.3 Similar to point No. 1.
Point No.4 DEOs are provided by the Agency. The qualification of DEO may be perused at http://gem/.gov.in/.
Point No.5 Similar to point No. 1.
Point No.6 Remuneration is not paid directly to the outsourced staff. However, payment is made to the private agency as per monthly bill.
Work/Service:
Data Entry and other casual work related to office functioning.
Point No.7 The DEO/MTS are outsourced through the Agency via Govt. e- Marketplace (GeM) portal.
Point No.8 There is no such matching information available."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 09.09.2022, held as under:
"On perusal of the relevant record it is observed that CPIO has provided adequate response within time limit as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority is not required to provide reasons and explanations. The text of appeal of the appellant against the order of the CPIO for not giving proper reply to this application seeking a reason.
On the above observation the Appeal preferred by the appellant, Sh. Vishal Rathour, may be treated as disposed off."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
3The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: S A Tripathi, CPIO along with Ashish Potnis present through intra- video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant has largely sought for answers and clarifications that do not strictly qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, points 1,3,5,6 specifically ask for information related to third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO has provided factual replies to all points of the RTI Application, merits of which cannot be called into question.
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. 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 was held as under:
4"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 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 5 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) Further, as regards the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."6
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.
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