Central Information Commission
Mrdevendra Joshi vs Department Of Science & Technology on 29 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/001229
Appellant : Shri Devendera Joshi
Manor House Cottage, Mankapur Compound
Mallital, Nainital
Public Authority : The CPIO
Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (Aries)
(M/o. Science & Technology), Manora Peak, Nainital-263002
Date of Hearing : 29.02.2016
Date of Decision : 29.02.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Shri Satish Kumar, Information Scientist & CPIO and
Shri Ravinder Kumar, Registrar
FACTS:
I.Vide RTI application dated 06.09.2015, the appellant sought information on 2 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 06.10.2015, reportedly not provided the information to the appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 09.10.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 23.10.2015, denied to provide the information u/s 8 (1) (c & e).
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 26.11.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION Page 1 of 3 It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 06.09.2015, sought information from the respondents on two issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 06.10.2015, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 09.10.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 23.10.2015, disposed of the FA. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 06.10.2015, provided the vague & irrelevant information to the appellant. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 23.10.2015, disposed of the FA by denying the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. It is needless to mention here that Section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act 2005, deals with the exemptions from the disclosure of information which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature. Further, Section 8(1)(e) deals with the exemptions from the disclosure of information pertaining to fiduciary relationship. No doubt, FAA vide his order, referred to above, taken pleas under
Section 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 but failed to justify his plea taken under 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. Further, according to the Section 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, the onus to justify the plea taken under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005, lies on the shoulders of respondents only and not of the information seeker i.e. appellant. Thus, merely taking a plea by the respondents under any sub- clauses of the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005, would not serve the real legislative intent for which it was legislated by Hon. Legislatures in the Parliament of India and also may not stand the judicial scrutiny, in case, the matter is challenged before the Hon. High Courts or Hon. Supreme Court of India.
5. By virtue of the position above, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justify to direct the respondents to forward the appellant's RTI application dated 06.09.2015, to the concerned public authority of Hon. Parliament to seek their comments in respect of section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act 2005 in the matter, in the first instance. After receipt of their comments, the matter needs to be re- examined by the respondents in the matter as to whether Section 8(1) (c) & 8(1)
(e) of the RTI Act 2005 would be applicable in denying the required information to the appellant on his RTI application or not. Thereafter, the appellant may be suitably Page 2 of 3 replied under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. Ordered accordingly.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The CPIO Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (Aries) (M/o. Science & Technology), Manora Peak, Nainital-263002 Shri Devendera Joshi Manor House Cottage, Mankapur Compound Mallital, Nainital Page 3 of 3