Central Information Commission
Shaji M K vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 8 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/A/2023/630717
Shaji M K .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Joint Director Vigilance
(Intelligence), Room No.520,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2024
Date of Decision : 05.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2023 seeking the following information:
1). A certified copy of all complaints received against Shri A.K.Agarwal (IRSME) while he was working as General Manager of Integral Coach Factory and the documents showing the follow up action taken on them.
2). A certified copy of all correspondences, including file notings, which have led to the issuance of transfer order of Shri A. K. Agarwal (IRSME), the Page 1 of 10 then General Manager, Integral Coach Factory to Rail Wheel Factory as General Manager.
3). A certified copy of all complaints received against Shri A. K. Agarwal (IRSME) during his present stint at Rail Wheel Factory as General Manager, including but not limited to those related to huge delay in disposal of files, and the documents showing the follow up action taken on them.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.04.2023 stating as under:
The part reply (Para 1 and 3) of your application is enclosed.
1) & 3) Information sought by you is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(e), 8(g) and 8(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.05.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information against Point Nos. 1 and 3 of RTI application with the following arguments -
(a) "On 21.04.2023, the CPIO had merely forwarded the information furnished by a Section Officer/Vigilance (Confidential), wherein the said deemed CPIO invoked "Section 8 (e), 8 (g) and 8 (j)" to deny me the information. In my First Appeal dated 05.05.2023 I had submitted that there is no such Section as Section 8 (e), 8 (g) & 8 (j). I had quoted from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi wherein it had inter alia came down heavily on the PIO which "without applying his mind merely forwarded the same to the information seeker". It was further held therein: "As has been noticed above, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner not for the reason of delay which the petitioner is attributing to respondent no.4 but for the reason of the petitioner having acted merely as Post Office, pushing the application for information received, to the respondent no.4 and forwarding the reply received from the respondent no.4 to the information seeker, without himself "dealing" with the application and/or 2 "rendering any assistance" to the information seeker". [J.P.Agrawal v. UOI & Ors. W.P.(C) 7232/2009. DOJ - 4.8.2011].
(b) It was further submitted that mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is to be taken to a provision contained in Page 2 of 10 Section 8 (1). It was also submitted that citing a provision of Section 8 (1) is quite different from furnishing of reasons. In this regard this Hon'ble Commission's order in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI was referred to by me which in turn relied upon the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. and B.S.Mathur v. PIO.
This Hon'ble Commission's order in Shri Dhananjay Tripathi v. Banaras Hindu University was also relied upon by me wherein it was held: "Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act." There is not even a whisper by the FAA about the relevance or otherwise of the orders cited by me, though he had relied on the order in Puttaswamy case though the same was out of context. Further, the FAA opted to fill the pages of the appellate order by extracting what is contained in Section 8 (1)
(e) (g) & (j) of the RTI Act, which is known to all.
(c) The FAA stated that the mentioning of "Section 8 (e), 8 (g) and 8(j)" by CPIO was inadvertent and which should have been Section 8 (1) (e), (g) and (j). I wish to state that there is no room for such casual approach by the CPIO, who had merely forwarded the information furnished by one Section Officer/Vigilance (Confidential), without at least cross checking its correctness. Labelling it as "typographical error" by FAA is unacceptable, since such an error had skipped two levels of verification viz., that of Section Officer/Vigilance (Confidential) [deemed CPIO] and the CPIO himself. It is thus evident that CPIO had acted as a mere post office than applying his own independent mind, and hence, this Hon'ble Commission's intervention is required to close down such 'post offices'.
(d) The FAA observed that I had neither given any justification nor brought any material on record to indicate involvement of larger public interest, which would have justified sharing such information about complaints related to third persons. When an applicant applies for some information he would not anticipate that the CPIO would object to it, thereby warranting furnishing of reasons along with his RTI request to substantiate involvement of larger public interest. Furnishing of reasons for justification on the ground of larger public interest arises only in the First Appeal stage, in the event the CPIO refuses to furnish information, provided the CPIO supports the denial by brief reasons [not mere citing of sub-section(s) of Section 8]. Even to facilitate the applicant for such furnishing of reasons for Page 3 of 10 justification in the larger public interest it is very much essential that the CPIO should briefly describe as to how and why the information sought for comes within the ambit of Section 8 (1). At the cost of repetition it is submitted that mere quoting of any sub-section of Section 8 by CPIO would not suffice, since the applicant would be in dark as to what he is required to counter / state in his First Appeal to prove larger public interest, in the absence of brief justification / reasons given by the CPIO in his order. If mere citing of a sub-section of Section 8 (1) is considered as sufficient without giving reasons / justification for invoking the same, all CPIOs can turn down all pleas for information with impunity.
(e) In any case, it is further submitted that the applicability of "larger public interest", if at all applicable, is confined only to Section 8 (1) (e), but not to other two sub-sections viz., Section 8 (1) (g) & (j). But the CPIO has not uttered anything to show how there existed a 'fiduciary relationship' and between which persons.
(f) As far as applicability of Section 8 (1) (g) is concerned the CPIO could have supplied the information after applying doctrine of severability under Section 10, since even I did not want to know the whereabouts or identity of the complainant(s) / investigator(s).
(g) Due to the denial of information by CPIO and FAA, I am at dark as to the nature of complaints, regarding which I sought information. If it is purely assumed that those complaints relate to corruption or irregularities, then they have an inherent element of public interest and no protection shall be extended under RTI Act against whom complaints are filed. Needless to say that one of the purposes of enactment of RTI Act was to "contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed". The very purpose of RTI Act gets defeated if all complaints are kept out of purview of RTI Act.
(h) In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties." The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttaswamy case has general applicability and the same cannot extent to public officials in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's order in Rajagopal case.
(i) What comes under the scope of 'personal' has already been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajagopal's case:
Page 4 of 10"26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) ........ A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. ......".
Hence, there is no justification for invoking Section 8 (1) (j) either.
(j) Hon'ble High Court, Kerala held on 11.07.2007 in Canara Bank v. The Central Information Commission [AIR 2007 Ker 225]: "
"In fact, if that contention is accepted then information relating to any person in respect of his illegal activities, especially corruption or misconduct could be withheld on the basis of the said section which is not what is contemplated under the Right to Information Act. I am of opinion that the information mentioned in Section 8(1)(j) is personal information which are so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would not benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of that person. ............. More importantly, the proviso to the section qualifies the section by stating that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the information requested for by the 2nd respondent are information which can be denied to the Parliament and a State Legislature. In fact that proviso effectively nullifies the impact of the main provision to a great extent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention based on Section 8(1)(j) also." [emphasis added].
(k) Hon'ble CIC in Balendra Kumar v. Min. of External Affairs [CIC/AD/A/X/2009/000121] has held on 14.09.2009:
"19. On perusal of the records and after hearing the contentions of all the parties, the Commission decides that the information as sought in the Application cannot be classified as personal information because the information exists in official records and is about the public exchequer as also a public office which represents the country. The argument of the Respondent Public Authority that no public interest angle could be substantiated by the Appellant had also been heard. However, in this connection it is important to remember that the public interest has to be established in case the information sought otherwise merits non disclosure, falling within one of the exempted categories and not vice versa. It has amply been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs that since the information sought relates to allegations of misappropriation of government money, public money being at stake, the information cannot be considered as personal Page 5 of 10 information and hence the information does not fall under provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Accordingly, the Commission directs that the information as sought by the Appellant be provided by 5 October 2009, while using the severance clause 10(1) of the RTI Act, if required, to severe parts exempted from disclosure in the enquiry report, under intimation to the Commission."
[emphasis added]
(l) The FAA referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy case (Aadhaar case) and maintained that Right to Privacy was recognised by the Hon'ble Apex Court as a fundamental right. I am not sure whether the FAA is aware of the fact that the same Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held Right to Information as a fundamental right under Article 19. In any case, the Right to Privacy as decided in Puttaswamy case was in a different context and was not decided vis a vis citizens' Right to Information.
(m) Without putting forth any justification / reasons [not merely citing some sub- section(s) of Section 8] for denying the information, if information related to all complaints which are undoubtedly against some persons / officials are denied seeking immunity, then it will be as if the Vigilance Organisation of the Railway Board has been included in Schedule - II of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Section 24, though the Vigilance Organisation of the Railway Board is not listed therein ."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. Bhaskar Roy Choudhary, JDV (I)/ CPIO accompanied by Mr. Madan Gopal Bharti, SO/ Vigilance present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the information sought has been vaguely denied by the CPIO without any speaking order/reply and supportive citation in this regard. To a query from the Commission as to whether he was one of the complainants who filed complaints against Shri A. K. Agarwal (IRSME), he answered in negative.
Respondent reiterated the contents of his written submission dated .06.2024 wherein he apprised the Commission as under -Page 6 of 10
"...5. Further submissions: The information regarding complaints, if received, against a railway servant in general and particularly against Shri A. K. Agarwal (IRSME) while he was working as GM/ICF & GM/RWF relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and this office in privy to the confidential information in fiduciary capacity. As such no information regarding the receipt or otherwise of any complaint against any railway servants in this office can be revealed to any person as the same is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
5.1 Further, documents showing follow-up action on any complaint, if received in this office, cannot be revealed as this may cause threat to life and property of the complainant or the persons handling the complaint.
Also, the information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. It was accordingly advised that the information is exempted under 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act."
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Respondent has appropriately denied the requested information to the Appellant as it contains elements of personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:Page 7 of 10
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.
Be that as it may, the Commission notes that around 10 cases of the Appellant have already been adjudicated by this Commission in the past against same/different Public Authorities. It is also worth noting that 7 Second Appeals are listed today i.e. on 02.07.2024 for hearing which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications with different public authorities. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen.
It appears that the Appellant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission, and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the Appellant, when the complainant is not in search of information but only trying to settle his baseless grievances against the department by filing multiple, vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals. All the Second Appeals are inter-related in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 8 of 10The Commission further finds it expedient to note that the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 is as under:
"...It is noted that the Appellant is a serving government employee under the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, while taking recourse to the RTI Act for his service-related matters, the Appellant is expected to approach the Public Authorities with clean hands. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy.
The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Page 9 of 10 Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter."
In view of the above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious and sensible use of his right to information in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Executive Director Vigilance (Police), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.Page 10 of 10
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)