Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ICOMR/C/2022/658965
CIC/ICOMR/C/2022/658966
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Indian Council of Medical research(ICMR)
2. PIO,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025
Date of Decision : 11.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
Since all the parties are the same the aforementioned cases are clubbed
together for final hearing and disposal.
Case RTI CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
No. received appeal /Complainant
by ICMR received on
658965 27.07.2022 -- -- -- 06.11.2022
658966 28.07.2022 -- -- -- 06.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1)CIC/ICOMR/C/2022/658965 (2)CIC/ICOMR/C/2022/658966 The Complainant filed an RTI application seeking information on following points:-
"By Letter Dated 25/09/21 MHA Issued To States Norm Of Rs 50,000 For Ex-Gratia Payment For Death Due To COVID (Against Rs. 400,000 For Other Disasters). Enclosed With MHA Letter Was NDMA Letter Dated 11/09/21 Enclosing (1) NDMA Guidelines Specifying Rs 50,000 And (Ii) Dohfw OM Page 1 Dated 03/09/21 Enclosing Guidelines Of DG ICMR & Secretary Mohfw. Both Guidelines Were Issued In Compliance Of Same Supreme Court Order In Which Direction No.1 Was For NDMA And No.2 For Appropriate Authority. I Had Made Request No. NDMAU/R/E/22/00004 Dated 16/01/22 To NDMA For Information Of The Broad Consultations And Due Deliberations With Key Stakeholders That Para-4 Of Its Guidelines Said Were Held, In Decision On My Appeal No. NDMAU/A/E/22/00003, NDMA FAA Informed That NDMA Was Not A Respondent Before The Supreme Court And That Consultations And Deliberations Were Made By MHA.
I Had Made Request No. MOHFW/R/E/22/00909 Dated 27/02/22 To Dohfw For Information Showing That ICMR DG & MHFW Secretary Were Joint Appropriate Authority. In Decision On Appeal No. MOHFW/A/E/22/00256, Dohfw FAA Provided Copy Of MHA OM Dated 17/08/21 In Which Para-2 Mentioned A Decision That Mohfw Will Formulate Guidelines In Consultation With ICMR.
With Reference To The Information Provided By NDMA FAA And Dohfw FAA, I Had Made Request No. MHOME/R/E/22/02324 Dated 21/06/22 To MHA For 5 Points Of Information (A1, A2, B1, B2 & 83); About The Consultations And Deliberations Mentioned The NDMA Guidelines:
A1. Dates Of Consultations And Deliberations With Lists Of Participating Stakeholders.
A2. The Amounts Collected As COVID Fines (If Reported) By States (If Consulted).
A3. Copies Of The Accounting/Budgeting Deliberations That Led To Specific Figure Of Rs 50,000 (And Not Any Other Figure Less Than The Rs 400,000 For Other Disasters). About The Appropriate Authority, W.R.T MHA OM Dated 17/08/21 No. C-18018/2/2021-DM-I:
B1. Information From The Original Record Of The Decision To Formulate The Guidelines Mentioned In Para-2 Of The MHA OM, Whether It Was For Mohfw Or DOHFW.
B2. Copies Of Further Decisions/Communications That Led To The Placement Of ICMR DG Before Secretary Mohfw In The Guidelines Issued.
On 04/07/22 MHA Had Transferred My Whole Request To Both NDMA (Vide No. NDMAU/R/T/22/00049) And Dohfw (Vide No. MOHFW/R/T/22/01927) And Dohfw Had Further- Transferred It To NDMA (Vide No. NDMAU/R/T/22/00051). I Had Requested Reason In Terms Of Section 4(1)(D) Of RTI Act For The Transfer Decision, In Email Dated 04/07/22 To Nodal Officer ID And (After NDMA CPIO Disposed Of The Transfers Without Providing Any Requested Information) In Further Email Dated 09/07/22, Printout Is ATTACHED.
Page 2 Now NDMA FAA Has Disposed Of My Appeals With Advice To Apply To The Concerned Public Authorities. PLEASE PROVIDE, SEPARATELY FOR EACH OF THE 5 POINTS (A1, A2, B1, B2 & B3) LISTED ABOVE:
1) Reason For Decision To Transfer To NDMA, And
2) EITHER The Requested Information, OR Confirmation That It Is Not Held."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information and multiple transfers under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 27.02.2025 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 06.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..I would like to bring to your kind attention to the facts arises from the MHA'S OM No.C-18018/2/2021-DM-1 dated 17.08.2021 received along with the CIC notice of hearing. According to this OM the Union Home Secretary convened a meeting on 16.07.2021 to discuss the further course of action regarding the issuance of simplified death certificates for deaths caused by COVID-19, which was in compliance with order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the Writ Petition No. 539 of 2021. In this meeting, the Union Home Secretary decided that MoHFW, in consultation with ICMR, to formulate guidelines/SOPs for certifying COVID-19- related deaths.
The above OM was originally addressed to the Secretary, DoHFW. Hence no information available in ICMR's file records. Refer to the document No. 2319134/DDG(PK)-DM CELL titled 'Guidelines for Official Document for COVID Death', jointly issued by the Secretary, MoHFW, and the DG, ICMR, received along with the above referred CIC notices of hearing, the document indicates that this document may be pertaining to the DM CELL, MoHFW, Government of India, ICMR does not possess any information with regard to 'Guidelines for Official Document for COVID Death' in ICMR records..."
A letter dated 06.03.2025 in response to instant Complaint has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The following information were requested from ICMR: -
B1. Information from the original record of the decision to formulate the guidelines mentioned in Para-2 of the MHA OM, whether it was for MoHFW or DoHFW.
Page 3 B2. Copies of further decisions/communications that led to the placement of ICMR DG before Secretary, MoHFW, in the guidelines issued.
In response to the RTI application, the then CPIO, Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal, Scientist E, Division of ECD, informed the applicant via letter dated 04.08.2022 that the RTI application had been transferred to DoHFW, as the information was not available with ICMR.
It is again reiterated that the information requested under u/s 6(3) of RTI Act for points B1 and B2 are not available with ICMR..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present in person along with Mr. Sarabjit Roy.
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Shankar Meena, SO, Legal Cell, Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, AO, Legal Cell, Mr. Jitendra Narayana, ICMR, HQ, Dr. Yogesh, DM-Cell, MoHFW participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that her instant two Complaints dated 06.11.2022 are against ICMR's RTI online transfers back to DoHFW of its receipts dated 27.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 by transfer & re-transfer from DoHFW. She stated that to enquire whether or not ICMR holds any of the information as sought, she has approached this Commission under section 18 of the RTI Act because transfers under 6(3) of the RTI Act are not open to appeals under section 19 of the RTI Act. She stated that she had filed RTI Application dated 26.07.2022 to DoHFW and DHFW transferred the same to ICMR vide No. INCMR/R/T/22/00418 dated 27.07.2022. The ICMR transferred back to DoHFW and DoHFW re-transferred vide No. INCMR/R/T/22/00422 dated 28.07.2022. She stated that this is a case of incorrect use of section 6(3) of the RTI Act to make back-and-forth transfers, each time creating a new receipt registration under section 6(3) in her name. She stated that DoHFW had also issued O.M. dated 17/08/2022 to CPIO, ICMR to provide information but the information was not provided by the ICMR. She requested to initiate enquiry to determine whether or not ICMR holds the requested information.
PIO, ICMR reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the MHA'S OM No.C-18018/2/2021-DM-1 dated 17.08.2021 relating to which information has been sought was originally addressed to the Secretary, DoHFW and accordingly, no information is available in ICMR's file records. They averred that as per the available ICMR records no information with regard to 'Guidelines for Official Document for COVID Death' is available. PIO, ICMR clearly stated that information sought at point No. B 1 and B 2 is not available in their records.
Page 4 Decision:
Since all the parties are the same the aforementioned cases are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission/response dated 06.03.2025 along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, it is noted that response based on records available with the public authority had been furnished to the Complainant, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with the instant Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had replied based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter. Furthermore, after examining the facts and records of the case Commission notes that no case of enquiry under Section 18 is made out. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent was appropriate and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
Page 5 The Commission furthermore observed that there was lack of clarity in respect of the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the Respondent Public Authority is advised to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, a copy of this order be marked to Director General (DG) of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)