Central Information Commission
Mrmrityunjay Kumar vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 30 December, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000049
Date of Hearing : 17.12.2014
Date of Decision : 30.12.2014
Appellant : Shri Mrityunjay Kumar,
Ghaziabad
Respondent : Shri G.S. Arora, CPIO/US(BD)
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
New Delhi
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2012
PIO replied on : 28.05.2012 & 04.06.2012
First Appeal filed on : 12.07.2012
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 27.07.2012
Second Appeal received on : 23.09.2013
Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding rebuttals/response/communication filed by / received in the M/o I & B from all of Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti, DG Doordarshan and Cabinet Secretary/Prime Minister or any other authority regarding report of High Level Committee constituted to look into issues relating to organising/conduct of Commonwealth Games along with punitive/disciplinary/administrative action taken by M/o I & B against Smt. Aruna Sharma.
1 | P a g e Relevant facts emerging during hearing: 05.12.2014 Both the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2012, seeking the above information. CPIO/US(B-Finance) in his reply denied information on points 3(a & b) u/s 8(1)(h) as the matter was pending for investigation by CVC, CBI and CVO, Prasar Bharti. CPIO/US(BA-P) in his reply on point 3(c) stated that no action has been taken against Smt. Aruna Sharma by BAP section. FAA/Director (BAP) held that information on point 3(c) has been provided. FAA/DS(B-Finance) recorded in his order that the appellant had filed first appeal for not receiving reply from the CPIO and thus, enclosed the same for necessary information.
The appellant stated that he wanted to know the follow up action of the High Level Committee (HLC) headed by Shri V.K. Shunglu but the respondent denied the information by simply stating that the matter regarding which information has been sought is under CBI investigation.
The appellant further stated that there were 10 to 15 parts of the said report out of which Broadcasting was one of them. He wanted the rebuttals filed against that report. The respondent stated that the CBI has now filed the closure report which has been accepted by the court. The respondent furnished written submissions in this regard vide letter dated 03.12.2014.
Interim Decision: 05.12.2014 After hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission finds that the questions asked by the appellant are clear and are, firstly, to be answered in Yes/No and then to be dealt with accordingly. The written submission furnished by the respondent dated 03.12.2014 has been perused and copy of the same be supplied to the appellant immediately. The same nowhere answers any of the three queries sought by the appellant. The Commission directs the respondents to supply specific answers to both the appellant and the Commission. The Commission also observes that initially the CPIO had denied information on points 3(a &
b) u/s 8(1)(h), however, the same is now being denied u/ss 8(1)(c) & (h). Therefore, the Commission directs the respondents to acquaint themselves of the true facts of the case and clearly state the exemptions invoked for denying information. The case will be heard again on 17th December 2014 at 1600 hrs. The appellant is free to furnish written submissions if he wishes to.
The appeal is adjourned to 17th December 2014 at 1600 hrs. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: 17.12.2014 Written Submission dt. 16.12.2014 has been furnished before the Commission. A copy of the same has been given to the appellant. The appellant, on perusal of the same stated that the public authority has now invoked another section, i.e., Section 8(1)(b). He urged that the same be rejected as it cannot be made a new ground at this stage of the proceedings. On query by the Commission whether there is any express bar from any court for publishing such information, the respondent replied in the negative.
2 | P a g e The appellant stated that he respondent authority's contention u/s 8(1)(c) is also incorrect as the same relates to seeking information, disclosure of which will breach the privilege of the parliament or the state legislature. He urged that he has not sought for information related to a Parliamentary Committee. HE apprised the Commission that the Shunglu Committee was constituted under an administrative order in 2010 to report on deficiencies in conducting the Commonwealth Games in Delhi and to lay down a roadmap for future. He stated that he is seeking rebuttals/responses on report filed by Shunglu Committee and not of a Parliamentary Committee. The respondent stated that the matter is sub-judice. He furnished some documents before the Commission that the matter is still under examination and the matter is being finalised for referring it to CVC.
The appellant contended that the denial of information has to be on the basis of evidence and simpliciter stating that the information cannot be provided is not sufficient. The appellant referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. [WP(C) No. 3114/2007].
Interim Decision: 30.12.2014 Information has been sought regarding rebuttals/response/communication filed by/received in the M/o I&B from all of DDn, PB, DG:DDn and Cabinet Secretary/Prime Minister or any other authority regarding report of High Level Committee constituted to look into issues relating to organising/conduct of Commonwealth Games along with punitive/disciplinary/administrative action taken by M/o I & B against Smt. Aruna Sharma. The appellant has not sought the outcome of the investigation.
The order of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. [WP(C) No. 3114/2007] has been perused. The relevant portion is re-produced as under:-
"14. In the present case, the orders of the three respondents do not reflect any reasons, why the investigation process would be hampered. The direction of the CIC shows is that the information needs to be released only after the investigation and recovery in complete. ...Recovery in tax matters, in the usual circumstances is a time consuming affair, and to withhold information till that eventuality, after the entire proceedings, despite the ruling that investigations are not hampered by information disclosure, is illogical. The petitioner's grouse against the condition imposed by the CIC is all the more valid since he claims it to be of immense relevance, to defend himself in criminal proceedings. ...
15. As to the issue of whether the investigation has been complete or not, I think that the authorities have not applied their mind about the nature of information sought. As is submitted by the Petitioner, he merely seeks access to the preliminary reports investigation pursuant to which notices under Sections 131, 143(2), 148 of the Income Tax have been issued and not as to the outcome of the investigation and reassessment carried on by the Assessing Officer. As held in the preceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assessee, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information. ..."
3 | P a g e The Commission finds that the above ratio applies in the instant case. The information cannot be denied by simpliciter stating that the information cannot be provided as the same is pending investigation. Cogent reasons have to be given to show that disclosure of such information will impede the process of investigation. The respondent has been unable to show the above. Further, the Commission accepts the appellant's plea that Section 8(1)(b) cannot not be invoked or be made a new ground, at this stage of the proceedings. This plea should have been taken at the very first instance. Invoking Section 8(1)(b) now is not permissible. Therefore, the respondent's contention u/s 8(1)(b) is rejected.
As for denying information u/s 8(1)(c), the respondent has been, again, unable to specify whether the information sought will fall under the said exemption. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to file an affidavit before the Commission clearly stating whether the said information falls under the exemption of Section 8(1)(c). The affidavit shall be filed before the Commission, within three weeks of receipt of this order, after which the Commission shall pass a final order and fresh notices will be issued, if desired. A copy of the said affidavit shall be given to the appellant.
The order is reserved.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar 4 | P a g e