Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 15 February, 2021
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154582
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154583
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154584
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154585
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154586
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154587
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154588
Smt. Nutan Thakur ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2021
Date of Decision : 15.02.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
154582 15.08.2019 22.08.2019 24.08.2019 11.09.2019 14.11.2019
154583 14.08.2019 23.08.2019 16.09.2019 27.09.2019 14.11.2019
154584 18.08.2019 26.08.2019 17.09.2019 27.09.2019 14.11.2019
154585 15.08.2019 23.08.2019 24.08.2019 11.09.2019 14.11.2019
154586 15.08.2019 23.08.2019 16.09.2019 27.09.2019 14.11.2019
154587 14.08.2019 22.08.2019 24.08.2019 11.09.2019 14.11.2019
154588 15.08.2019 23.08.2019 16.09.2019 27.09.2019 14.11.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154582 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated15.08.2019 seeking information on following 05 points:-Page 1 of 10
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 22.08.2019 replied as under:-
1 to 5- "It is informed that the information sought by you is not available with the undersigned CPIO. However the information might be available with CPIO of Ministry of External Affairs and hence your application is being transferred to CPIO, MEA under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information to you directly."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2019.The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 11.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission has been received from the US (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs dated 05.02.2021 wherein at the outset it was stated that none of the documents pertaining to the transferred RTI application/ First Appeal were received by them. However, an identical RTI application was filed by the Appellant directly with the Ministry on 15.08.2019. The CPIO (US) Pakistan in his response dated 15.09.2019 cited Section 8 (1) (f) of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information which was agreed and accepted by the FAA.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and Dy Secretary (D/o Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs), MHA dated 09.02.2021 wherein while reiterating the action taken on each of the 7 matters under consideration herein it was stated that reply was provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 10In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. She stated that no information was received by her subsequent to transfer of the application to the M/o External Affairs.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Arun Kumar, US, RTI, M/o External Affairs and Shri Kabiraj Sabeer, DS (LC), D/o JKL Affairs, MHA. Shri Sabeer reiterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information sought was not available with M/o Home Affairs.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that appropriate response is provided by the CPIO, M/o Home Affairs. Furthermore, in his written submission, the representative of M/o External Affairs has explained the factual position in the matter. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154583 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2019 seeking information on following 03points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 23.08.2019 denied the information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 27.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 10Facts emerging during the hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. She stated that no specific clause under Section 8 (1) was quoted by the CPIO and the response was provided without application of mind.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Kabiraj Sabeer, DS (LC), D/o JKL Affairs, MHA. Shri Sabeer reiterated the response of the CPIO and initially during the hearing referred to Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denial of information for the reason that disclosure of information could affect the life and physical safety of the officers involved in preparation of notings. However, subsequently the Respondent stated that disclosure of information may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of the State.
Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observes that the CPIO/ FAA provided a casual/ callous response to the Appellant without application of mind. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the representatives of the Respondent present during the hearing did not appear totally conversant with the provisions of the Act as they quoted Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denial which clearly appears not to be applicable to the present case as the information sought is exempted under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 10In view of the above analysis, the Commission would like to place on record its displeasure to the CPIO over the casual manner in which the RTI application had been dealt with. The CPIO is therefore, warned to be extremely careful and vigilant in handling RTI petitions in future, failing which the Commission may initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154584 (4) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154585 (5) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154586 (6) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154588 Since the information pertaining to reports published in news articles is sought in all of the above 4 matters and a similar reply provided by the CPIO a common decision is pronounced in the matter.
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154584 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.08.2019 seeking information on following 06 points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 26.08.2019 replied as under:-Page 5 of 10
"It is informed that the information sought by you from point no. 1 to 6 is not available with the undersigned CPIO. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 27.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154585 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.08.2019 seeking information on following 06 points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 23.08.2019 replied as under:-
"It is informed that the information sought by you from point no. 1 to 5 is not available with the undersigned CPIO. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing Page 6 of 10 and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 11.09.2019 disposed of the First Appeal dated 24.08.2019 while upholding the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154586 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated15.08.2019 seeking information on following 07 points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 23.08.2019 replied as under:-
"It is informed that the information sought by you from point no. 1 to 7 is not available with the undersigned CPIO. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing Page 7 of 10 and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 27.09.2019 disposed of the First Appeal dated 16.09.2019 while upholding the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154588 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking information on following 07 points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 23.08.2019 replied as under:-
"It is informed that the information sought by you from point no. 1 to 7 is not available with the undersigned CPIO. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority."Page 8 of 10
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 11.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. She stated that the information sought should be available with the public authority as statements referred in the news reports must have been made on the basis of available record.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Kabiraj Sabeer, DS (LC), D/o JKL Affairs, MHA. Shri Sabeer reiterated the CPIO/ FAAs reply in all the matters and stated that the information sought was not available with them.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response is provided by the CPIO in all the matters. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information that is held and available with the public authority can be provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matters.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.
(7) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154587 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2019 seeking information on following 03 points:-
The CPIO / Director (J&K) vide letter dated 22.08.2019 replied as under:-Page 9 of 10
"It is informed that the information sought by you is not available with the undersigned CPIO. However the information might be available with Director (S-J&K) and CPIO MHA and hence your application is being transferred to Director (S-J&K) & CPIO, MHA under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information to you directly."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2019. The FAA & Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 11.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. She stated that no action was taken subsequent to the transfer of the RTI Application.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Kabiraj Sabeer, DS (LC), D/o JKL Affairs, MHA. Shri Sabeer stated that subsequent to the transfer of application, a reply was provided by the Director (S) J&K vide letter dated 26.08.2019 wherein it was stated that the information sought was not available with them and can be treated as Nil.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response is provided by the CPIO in the matters. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information that is held and available with the public authority can be provided. However, the Director (S) J&K is directed to transfer the RTI application to the concerned CPIO of UT of J&K in accordance with Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 10 of 10