Central Information Commission
Shashi Pal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 3 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No. : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/163289/SD
Shashi Pal ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DAV College ,
UT of Chandigarh-160011 ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
RTI application filed on : 19/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 28/06/2017
First appeal filed on : 30/06/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 08/08/2017
Second Appeal dated : 31/08/2017
Date of Hearing : 17/09/2018
Date of Decision : 01/10/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding educational qualification of Sukhpal Singh Khaira of 1984 batch in terms of his Registration Number and copy of Degree.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.1
Respondent: Sanjay Saini, Office Supdt. & CPIO, DAV College, UT of Chandigarh present through VC.
Upon a query from the Commission regarding the rationale behind denying the information, CPIO submitted that consent of the third party was sought and based on the refusal of the said third party information was denied to the Appellant. He further explained the process of providing degrees to students and in that course submitted that copy of degree is not retained by the College but could be available with Chandigarh University, and he also apprehended the availability of this information as it pertained to the year 1984, when Preparatory system was being followed, so it is not clear if the third party was part of the preparatory course or B.A Part II course. Upon further query from the Commission, CPIO submitted that the third party is a sitting MLA in the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
Decision Commission is of the considered opinion that the fact that a public representative denied disclosure of such information which has been declared by him in his affidavit filed with nomination papers for election to the Legislative Assembly defies the very spirit of transparency and accountability solicited from a public representative. The public representative is reposed with the trust of his people who elect him into office based on the declarations made in the nomination papers and other verbal affirmations deeming such individual to be worthy of representing them. The aspect of larger public interest in disclosure of the information regarding a public representative who is expected to work towards the welfare of his/her constituency yields to the protection of right to privacy. When a public representative is making a declaration on affidavit, there ought to be no reason why he should refuse to give his consent for disclosure of the same under RTI Act rather such hesitation raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of his/her constituents regarding the credibility of the representative. The present set of facts tend to the famous idiom that 'Caesar's wife should be above suspicion' as a mark of ensuring probity in public life but 'it is not enough if Caesar's wife is above suspicion, Caesar himself should be above suspicion'.
In this regard, the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7178 of 2001 (Union of India vs. Association For Democratic Reforms & Anr.) which necessitated the filing of affidavits by candidates for election to Parliament or State Legislature dealt with the following question primarily:2
File No. : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/163289/SD "Short but important question involved in these matters is - in a nation wedded to republican and democratic form of Government, where election as a Member of Parliament or as a Member of Legislative Assembly is of utmost importance for governance of the country, whether, before casting votes, voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates?"
The key obiter-dicta of the Court in the matter are extracted hereunder:
"In our opinion, the decision of even illiterate voter, if properly educated and informed about the contesting candidate, would be based on his own relevant criteria of selecting a candidate. In democracy, periodical elections are conducted for having efficient governance for the country and for the benefit of citizens - voters. In a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. He has choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voters has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in criminal case. For maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided - its result, if pending - whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the Court? There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters." Emphasis Supplied "In a continual participative operation of periodical election, the voter does a social audit of his candidate and for such audit he must be well informed about the past of his candidate."
"MPs or MLAs are undoubtedly public functionaries. Public education is essential for functioning of the process of popular government and to assist the discovery of truth and strengthening the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making process. The decision making process of a voter would include his right to know about public functionaries who are required to be elected by him."3
"In our view, it is rightly submitted that in a democratic form of government, MP or MLA is having higher status and duty to the public. In P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1988) 4 SCC 626] the Court inter alia considered whether Member of Parliament is a public servant? The Court [in para 162] held thus:-
"A public servant is any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty". Not only, therefore, must the person hold an office but he must be authorised or required by virtue of that office to perform a public duty. Public duty is defined by Section 2 (b) of the said Act to mean "a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or that community at large has an interest". In a democratic form of government it is the Member of Parliament or a State Legislature who represents the people of his constituency in the highest lawmaking bodies at the Centre and the State respectively. Not only is he the representative of the people in the process of making the laws that will regulate their society, he is their representative in deciding how the funds of the Centre and the State shall be spent and in exercising control over the executive. It is difficult to conceive of a duty more public than this or of a duty in which the State, the public and the community at large would have greater interest..." Emphasis Supplied.
Adverting to the cumulative essence of the above observations, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that disclosure of the information sought in the instant RTI Application is in larger public interest as has been also stated by the Appellant in his grounds of Second Appeal. Besides, the irony in the denial of consent of the public representative to disclose the information under RTI Act even as he has declared the same on affidavit is perturbing.
In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the CPIO to liaise adequately with the probable holder of information (Chandigarh University) to ascertain availability of the copy of degree as sought in para 2 of the RTI Application. In doing so, it shall be noted that even in the absence of copy of degree, record showing registration number of the individual should be available with the College or University and the same should be made available to the Appellant in response to para 1 of the RTI Application.
Further, in the event, copy of degree remains untraceable and/or unavailable; the same should be stated by the CPIO on an appropriately filed affidavit to be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant. Information to be provided in compliance of this order should be free of cost 4 File No. : CIC/UTOCH/A/2017/163289/SD and a compliance report of the aforesaid directions should be sent to the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
For securing timely compliance of the above directions, CPIO is also directed to serve a copy of this order on the concerned probable holders of information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
5