Central Information Commission
Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 6 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC/PB/A/08/1354
February 6th, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik
Public Authority: Dy. Secretary & CPIO
Sangeet Natak Akademi
Background of the case
1. The RTI request was filed on 01.08.2008 by the Appellant herein invoking provisions of the RTI Act 2005 seeking information on a detailed questionnaire. The Appellant was assigned a research study by the Planning Commission with the objective of studying and critically assess the role of Central Sangeet Natak Akademi as a nodal autonomous Central Government agency in promoting, propagating and disseminating the diversity of India's cultural expressions. The Appellant in their various questions totaling 8 main questions with further sub questions sought detailed information on the activities, policies, as also the information regarding the evaluation-study entrusted by the Planning Commission to the NGO Sankalp represented by the Appellant as also reiteration of some of the questions asked by the Appellant in the earlier RTI request.
2. The said application was addressed by the Appellant to the Ministry of Culture. The Ministry while responding to the said application vide its letter dated 28.08.2008 stated that while the matter had been taken up with the Planning Commission, the information pertaining to the query number 6 can be adequately provided by the relevant public authority viz. Sangeet Natak Akademi, hence the same should be sought from the Akademi. It has further been stated by the Ministry in its response that the information sought in point 7 would require an opinion/advice as the response which is not warranted under provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant, accordingly, sought the information pertaining to the query number 6 from the Akademi vide its RTI request dated 10.10.2008.
3. The CPIO of the Akademi in his reply dated 24.10.2008 while admitting that the Akademi is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Culture denied the rest of the information stating that "...any information related to the policy components and policy basis or decision on granting autonomy to the Akademi .." can be availed from the Ministry of Education being the appropriate authority to grant such autonomy.
3. The Appellant filed an appeal on 31.10.2008 before the CIC, being aggrieved by such denial of access to information and being provided with misleading as also obstruction in furnishing of information by the Akademi. The Appellant further averred in her appeal that she was aggrieved at the such violation of the Section 4 (1) and (2) by the CPIO & CEO of the Respondent Public Authority who intentionally while acting in contravention of the Section 4 (1), (2) and (3) of the RTI Act 2005 had also obstructed access to information denied information on the incongruous ground that the Akademi acting as an autonomous body was itself deprived of any information on its own autonomous status and character.
5. The Commission vide its communication dated 24.12.2008 and 27.01.2009 sent notices for hearing to the concerned CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Appellant and also the Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture.
6. The Appellant had filed four separate RTI Applications in this issue and one complaint for non-compliance. Accordingly on the denial of information on all of them, four separate Appeals being Nos. CIC/PB/A/2008/01221, CIC/PB/A/2008/01222, CIC/PB/C/2008/972/AD & CIC/PB/A/2008/01354/AD had been filed before the CIC. The Respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2009 communicated to the CIC that since the CPIO, Akademi had met with an accident; adjournment was sought by the alongwith the request for clubbing the hearings of all the four appeals on a single day. Hence the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, rescheduled the hearing on 6th February 2009 at 10.30 am.
7. The Respondent Public Authority, vide communication dated 05.02.2009, sent their submissions/reply to the appeals filed by the Appellant. In their submissions the Respondent stated that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture had taken strong exception to the decision of the Planning Commission in assigning the research project on the Akademi without consulting the concerned Ministry (Culture) or even the Akademi raising the basic issue of integrity and capacity of the Appellant's NGO to conduct such a study. While rejecting the RTI request of the Appellant herein the Respondents submitted their reservations on the facts that a) the Appellant, representing an organisation does not fall within the definition of "citizen" as laid down in the Section 3 of the Act; b) The Act while ensuring secure access of information from public authority to citizen, does not lay down any mandate for the public authority to provide services of gathering and supplying information for completion of research projects assigned to organization; c) Hypothetical assumptions of the researcher and and/or opinions or advice sought in the form of information do not fall within the definition of 'information' as per the provision of the Act, hence only the material or information available in records in physical form can be supplied by the CPIO. It was further submitted by the respondent in his written submission that information considered relevant and necessary for proactive disclosure has been duly posted on the website of the Akademi and the violation of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act can be ascertained by an audit of the proactive disclosure by a competent authority.
8. Dr. A N Chakravarty, Consultant represented the Respondent Public Authority, since the concerned CPIO was reportedly on medical leave.
9. The Appellant, Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik and Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mishra were present during the hearing.
DECISION
10. The submissions of the Respondent Akademi dated 05.02.2009, mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate the difference in opinion among the Ministry of Culture, Respondent Akademi, Appellant and the Planning Commission with respect to the assigning of such a research to an organization like SANKALP in view of the basic issue of integrity, capacity and competence of the Appellant NGO in question. In fact there has been strong observation from the Secretary, Ministry of Culture to the Planning Commission for withdrawal of the assignment as also for blacklisting of the NGO headed by the Appellant. Be that as it may, the said difference in opinions is out of the ambit of the instant appeals and the issue therein is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, hence the said facts though noted are not dealt with while deciding these RTI cases.
11. The detailed arguments of both the parties and the documentary records produced before the Commission indicates the fact that the questionnaire as put forth by the Appellant pertain to queries which should form part of records maintained by the Akademi in compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) (a), (b), (c) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence the said information may be furnished to the Appellant. However the query which can be responded only by an advice/opinion may be removed from the list of queries to be put forth by the Appellant.
12. The Appellant shall approach the concerned CPIO with the revised RTI request, as directed hereinabove within a period of 15 days and the CPIO is directed to furnish the information available with him within a period of 30 days thereafter. The Commission further directs the CPIO of the Akademi to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Section 4(1) (a), (b), (c), 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 by putting up all the relevant and necessary information pertaining to the various activities, programmes, policies etc on their website. A status report of compliance in of the aforesaid provision of the RTI Act 2005 is directed to be furnished to the Commission within a period of 20 days from the receipt of this order. In the event that the Appellant is still dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, she shall be free to approach the Commission seeking appropriate remedy available in law for the non compliance of the order.
[ANNAPURNA DIXIT] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik B-1/8, 2nd Floor, Africa Avenue Road, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029
2. Dy. Secretary & CPIO Sangeet Natak Akademi National Academy of Music, Dance & Drama Rabindra Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Jt. Secy. & First Appellate Authority Ministry of Culture 334 (A), 'C' Wing Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC