Central Information Commission
Dharmesh Harakchand Jain vs Central Adoption Resource Agency on 30 September, 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/CARAG/A/2022/634867
Dharmesh Harakchand Jain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Adoption Resource
Agency, M/o Women & Child
Development, RTI Cell, West
Block-8, Wing-2, 1st Floor,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/09/2022
Date of Decision : 29/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 20/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.05.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "The current regulations, circulars regarding Adoption & whether Adoption Deed Registration in the Sub Registrar Offices within Maharashtra 1 is sufficient for a In Country Relative Adoption between Relatives who are Siblings.
2. Whether Court Order is compulsory for such Adoption types or Registered Adoption Deed is sufficient to process such Adoption."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2022.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 20.06.2022 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1:- "For all the rules regarding circulars, regarding Adoptions etc., kindly access our website for details, http://cara.nic.in/ Point No. 2:- The question is incomplete regarding kind of adoption. The question needs to be more detailed with facts."
In regard to his First Appeal, FAA's order dated 23.06.2022 stated that the information sought has already been furnished to the appellant.
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 video-conference.
Respondent: H. Ravi Kumar, Assistant Director, CARA along with Ashutosh, Asst. Director & CPIO, CARA (MoWCD) present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background of his RTI application submitted that he wants to know the modalities of the procedures / processes entailed in the adoption of his brother's child. Since he encountered certain doubts/anomalies in the fulfilment of State Government's procedure to this effect, he wants to know the relevant rules/ regulations. However, he is aggrieved by the fact that desired clarifications in the specific manner as regards its availability/non-availability has not been provided by the CPIO till date. Hence, he requests the Commission to intervene and directs the CPIO to provide the necessary clarifications along with rile position.2
The CPIO explained that the actual custodian of the relevant information sought pertains to 'Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act' (HAMA) which comes under the Ministry of Law & Justice; GOI and that only one interlocutory portion of HAMA is looked after by the Respondent organization. Upon Commission's instance, he further facilitated a discussion on the jurisdiction of HAMA and CARA authorities.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO based on his queries as quoted in RTI Application; to that extent the factual reply provided by the CPIO is in line and with the spirit of RTI Act, 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.
In this regard, his attention is also 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:
"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, provided 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) 3 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"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 electronic form and information relating to any private body 4 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) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 5