Central Information Commission
K. Venkata Ramana vs National Commission For Protection Of ... on 2 February, 2022
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/NCPCR/A/2020/137291
K. Venkata Ramana ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights,
RTI Cell, 5th Floor, Chanderlok Building,
36/Janpath, New Delhi-110001 . .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/02/2022
Date of Decision : 01/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 07/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 05/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 27/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/11/2020
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2020 seeking the following information;
" It is to submit that a complaint regarding sexual abuse of a minor boy of class 7th by the school guard, forced pornography by Music Teacher among students and use of child labour at Balayogi Gurukulam(school) at Devarapalli (M), Visakhapatnam,A.P received by the NCPCR.
The Commission has taken cognizance of the above matter u/s 13 0) (I) of CPCR Act 2005 and asked the detailed inquiry report along with information/documents to the Commission as per the Act.
Hence I request the Commission to provide the copies of the following detailed inquiry reports along with the documents as per the letter of NCPCR under RTI Act-2005.
1. Detailed inquiry report from The Secretary, APSWREIS,Tadepalli, Guntur dist, A.P. as per File No. AP-119226/NCPCR/2019-20/POCSO/102544, Dt.16/10/2019 of NCPCR, NEW DELHI
2. Detailed inquiry report from The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, A.P, as per File No. AP- 119226/NCPCR/2019-20/POCS0/102546, Dt.16110/2019 of NCPCR,NEW DELHI."
The CPIO denied the information to the appellant on 07.05.2020 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2020. FAA's order dated 27.08.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and further stated that Section 23 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 74 of JJ Act, 2015 restricted to disclose the identity of sexually abused victim.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: G. Suresh, Assistant Director & CPIO present through audio- conference.2
The Appellant through his written submission 27.01.2022 raised the following arguments in the instant Appeal -
1 ) "A complaint regarding sexual abuse of a minor boy of class 7 th by the school guard, forced pornography by Music Teacher among students and use of child labour at B alayo gi Gurukulam(school) at Devarapalli (M), Visakhapatnam, A .P received by the NCPCR on dt. 1 9 /0 9 /2 0 1 9 .
2 ) The Commission has taken cognizance of the above matter u/s 13 (I) (j) of CPCR Act 2 0 0 5 ( a copy of Complaint is enclosed which is self explanatory).
3 ) The Commission directed the different Organisations to conduct an inquiry and provide a detailed inquiry report of the case along with some documents specified in their letter within 7 days from the date of receipt of the communication.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6 ) On the same issue, the Hon 'ble Chairman, NCPCR received two enquiry reports from different Authorities.
7 ) In one of the inquiries, I was made an ACCUSED, Filed Charge Sheet under the Criminal case n o . 7 7 /2 0 2 0 in the POCSO COURT, Visakhapatnam, A .P. 8 ) As the Authorities submitted their inquiry reports to the Ho n'ble Chairman, NC PC R, New Delhi, the Preliminary Stage of inquiry was completed and these inquiry reports became PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
9 ) Being an Accused, I made my first representation to provide copies of BOTH THE INQUIRY REPORTS........
10 ) .........The Authorities denied to provide the above information under the provisions of Section 8 (1 )(j) o f RTI A ct-2 0 0 5 by their MISINTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION......
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12 ) I further submit that, in this case both the ENQUIRIES were completed and Submitted their DETAILED ENQUIRY REPORTS ALONG WITH THE OTHER DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER OF NCPCR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO (2 YEARS). Once THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY completed their Enquiry and Submitted their REPORTS to the Concerned Authorities, THESE DOCUMENTS 3 BECOME PUBLIC DOCUMENTS and not come under Section 8 (1 )(j) of RTI Act.
Moreover it's a Preliminary Enquiry report which is merely a domestic public document.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
15) ..... I was FALSELY MADE AN ACCUSED. Being as an ACCUSED ,I HAVE A COMPLETE RIGHT TO GET THE COPIES OF THE ENQUIRY REPORTS AS PER MY REPRESENTATION AND THOSE SECTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO MY CASE. Being as an ACCUSED THE IDENTITY AND PARTICULARS OF VICTIM BOY ARE WITH ME ALSO. HENCE THE QUESTION OF SECRECY OF IDENTITY OF VICTIM BOY DOES NOT ARISE IN MY CASE and the Section 23 of the POCSO Act,2 0 1 2 and Section 74 of JJ Act, 20 15 are not restricting me from getting information from NCPCR. But unfortunately the APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISPOSED OF MY APPLICATION WITH WRONG INTERPRETATION AND MISUSE OF SECTIONS. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hence I beg the Benevolent Authority to direct the Officials of NCPCR to provide the Inquiry Reports along with all other documents as per my representation under Chapter V, Rule 19 (1) and impose penalty for not providing the information in time as per Rule 20(1)of the Chapter V of RTI Act.........."
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has sought information regarding a criminal complaint of sexual abuse filed by a third party against another third person which cannot be divulged to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and therefore, he has been informed accordingly. He further apprised the Commission that the Appellant did not specify in his RTI Application that he was also impleaded as one of the accused in the said complaint. Further, while rebutting the Appellant's contention, he explained that no preliminary inquiry report from the other concerned authorities , as such , has been received by the NCPCR .
The Appellant contested that he has gathered from other sources that a preliminary enquiry has been conducted by other authorities and a copy has been forwarded to NCPCR . However, the CPIO did not counter the statement of the Appellant. The Commission interjected and at its behest , the CPIO agreed to provide an affidavit in this regard stating categorically that no preliminary report as sought for in RTI Application has been received in their office.
Decision:
4The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records and in furtherance of hearing proceedings hereby directs the CPIO to file an affidavit with a Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant stating categorically that no preliminary inquiry report as sought by the Appellant through the instant RTI Application has been received by their office. The said affidavit should be filed by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5