Central Information Commission
Shri Rajiv Gupta vs Central Information Commission (Cic) on 23 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000087 dated 16.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajiv Gupta
Respondent -Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision announced: 23.2.2010
Facts:
By an application of 7.12.2007 Shri Rajiv Gupta of Andheri (East), Mumbai applied to the CPIO, Central Information Commission seeking the following information:
1. Are the public authorities required to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public. The information may please be provided with reference to S 4 (c) of the RTI Act.
2. If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative then does this mean that all relevant facts pertaining to policies or decisions which effect public constitute information.
3. If the answer to question No.2 is negative, then please specify the reasons.
4. If the answer to question No.1 is positive then as a citizen of India & as an affected member of the public is the public authority required under the law to provide the relevant file noting based on which that policy is formulated.
5. Are the public authorities required to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons?
The information may please be provided with reference to S 4
(d) of the RTI Act.
6. If the reply to question 5 is in the affirmative then does this mean that all its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions constitute information.
7. Are the public authorities required to issue reasoned orders?
8. Are the public authorities required to issue speaking orders?
9. If reasoned/speaking order is not issued by the public authority then is there any ready available. If yes, please provide the details.
10. If the public authority takes a plea that records are not available/missing then what action can be taken against the public authority.
11. If the records are declared to be public documents under the Indian Evidence Act then can these documents be denied. In terms of section 8(I) (b), if the information has not been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or 1 tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court then can this information be denied.
12. If the matter is subjudice, can the information be denied under the plea that the matter is subjudice?
13. If the public authority gives wrong information then what are the remedies available to the information seeker.
14. Are the public authorities required to provide copies of the file notes when called for?
15. Does the third party enjoy the absolute right to deny the information to the information seeker?
16. Can the third party only take grounds that are available to the public authority for the denial of information?
17. If the third party does not specify and valid grounds for the denial of information but simply responds that the information should not be given to the third party then can the information be denied to the third party by the public authority.
18. Does CIC office provide video conferencing facility in case of upcountry appellants? If yes, what are the criterion for the same?
To this Shri Rajiv Gupta received a response from CPIO Shri G. Subramanian, Under Secretary dated 22.12.2007 informing him as follows:-
"You have sought information on 18 counts. You are seeking answers to questions and not seeking information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In a way you want the undersigned to interpret the Act, which the undersigned is not competent to do.
However, as for point 18, CIC organizes video-conferencing once the Appellant/ Respondent (s) request for appearance through videoconference. The criteria is availability of facility and the location where the videoconference is sought from."
Aggrieved Shri Rajiv Gupta moved an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, CIC pleading as follows:-
"Complete replies/ facts relating to the issue are requested: complete question by question reply is requested. As you will agree from the perusal of the 18 questions that information is sought so that information can be effectively used by the information seekers."
Appellate authority Shri L. C. Singhi, Registrar, CIC in his order of 17.4.2008 held as follows:-
"Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is obliged to provide information which is held by and under the control of a public authority He cannot provide something which is not available in a material form. The definition of the word 'information' under section 2 (f) is quite clear and it only means an 'information' which is available in a material form and is held by or exists under the control of a public authority. It is a 2 different matter altogether as to what the public authority should do or is obliged under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO has no concern with that. He has to refer to the records and provide information asked for by an appellant. He cannot answer something which is not available on records. He cannot provide information based on his memory or experience of working in the Commission.
The CPIO naturally cannot answer to the questions in an application which is submitted under the Right to Information Act. He can provide the information that has been asked for or what is available on records of the Commission.
Insofar the interpretation of various Sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005 concerned, the CPIO is not the right person and competent to do so.
Under these circumstances, I do not find any denial whatsoever on the part of the CPIO. He has made available whatever information was specific and asked for by the appellant.
Insofar as this appeal petition is concerned, it has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.' This has brought Shri Rajiv Gupta in his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-
"Question by question reply is requested. In reply bearing reference CIC/CPIO/2008/1099 dated 19.9.2008, it has been accepted that questions are not prohibited under the RTI ACT & they can be replied if they have nexus to direct information. The questions raised have direct nexus to information, therefore, the answers may please be provided.' Appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta has followed this up with an e-mail of 19.2.2010 endorsed as follows:-
"Mr. W. Habibullah, CIC: At the very least the order in original or the order in appeal should be mentioned in the personal hearing memos because on a particular day an appellant can file two or more appeals then he is not in a position to know what is being referred to. The PH cannot be treated as merely a formality. When there are telefaxes, the person should pick up- the phone & then give the fax tone if required."
This e-mail request has been responded to by e-mail from the Registry, CIC dated 22.2.2010. The appeal was heard through videoconference on 23.2.2010. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Centre, Mumbai.
Shri Rajiv Gupta Respondents at CIC Chamber, New Delhi 3 Shri G. Subramanian, Under Secretary, CPIO.
Ms. Anita Gupta, Additional Secretary, Appellate Authority In response to our hearing notice Shri G. Subramanian in his letter of 22.2.2010 has, after a detailed examination of the questions moved in appeal, concluded with the following comment:-
"From above it is clear that he is seeking confirmation. Moreover, the CIC in a decision in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00526 (Shri Rajiv Gupta vs. Customs Department, Raigad in its decision to a query No. 10 & 11: "Query No. 10: Is there a system of registration of contracts in the custom department.
Query No. 11: What is the significance and benefit of registration of contract.
The Commission held, Even a cursory look at the query of the appellant exhibits that what he is seeking here is interpretation of extant Rules and Regulations. Even if it is assumed that the appellant is genuinely in need of guidance about what certain Rule represent, he cannot seek the interpretation of the law from the respondents as if the respondents were his personal consultants. Once a certain set of Rules and Regulations are in the public domain, its interpretation is an ongoing process to be carried out by the departmental officials, Courts, Tribunals even parties engaged in imports exports. It is not open to a petitioner to seek from a particular department as to how it interpreted a particular law, Rule or Regulation and to engage such a Department in a debate about the nature, quality or the validity of such interpretation. RTI Act does not have room for such debates. It is about specific and extant information restricted to its definition in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, the decision of the CPIO is upheld."
"Before parting with this appeal, it is important to mention here that the Commission has been receiving a number of petitions from persons engaged in commercial activities, which are aimed at engaging a Department in an ongoing dialogue about how a certain set of Rules are to be interpreted. They believe that RTI Act provides them with a handle to query the Department about the interpretation of such Rules and Regulations. The intention of the law makers was never that the Act shall be used for engaging departments in open ended debates about how laws, Rules and Regulations are to be looked at. It is on account of this fact the appellant such as this cannot expect relief for their queries under RTI Act."
In view of above submission, I request the CIC to reject the second appeal, applying the principle of res judicata."
4Appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta submitted that there are cases in which the details asked for in his RTI application have not been disclosed by public authorities which have taken the plea that this does not fall within the information as defined in Section 2 (f).
DECISION NOTICE Most questions of appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta in his application of 7.12.2007 pertain to the application of sections 4 (1) (c), 4 (1) (d), 8 (1) (b) and 8 (1) (h). These are all questions regarding interpretation of law whereas it was explained by us in detail to appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta in the hearing as to how this law is to be applied. It was also explained that what he has asked for are questions of interpretation on enforceability of the law which clearly is not a question that can be answered by the CPIO, in any manner other than that ensconced in the Act itself, a copy of which is in appellants' hands. Appellant is advised that if he has any complaint of having received misleading or false information, it is open to him to approach the Commission with a complaint under section 18 (1) (e). It was also clarified to the appellant Shri Rajiv Gupta that the RTI Act can only get him information. Obtaining redress is, however, altogether a different issue for which having information in his possession is no doubt essential, but to ensure which the RTI Act has no application. With these clarifications, and because in response to the only request for information, which was Q no. 18, information has been provided in full, the appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 23.2.2010 5 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 23.2.2010 6