Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 18 July, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos.
1 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641337 6 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642156
2 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641338 7 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/644205
3 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641341 8 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/649214
4 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642152 9 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658877
5 CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642154
Shri Varun Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South East District ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Through: Sh. Manoj Sinha - ACP/Lajpat Nagar
NOTICEE: Shri Kumar Gyanesh
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2021,
Date of Decision : 08.06.2021, 18.07.2022
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 18.07.2022
Date of Show Cause Decision : 18.07.2022
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 FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on appeal dated/received
on
641337 25.03.2019 15.04.2019 24.04.2019 22.05.2019 24.05.2019
641338 17.03.2019 12.04.2019 24.04.2019 22.05.2019 24.05.2019
641341 17.03.2019 11.04.2019 24.04.2019 22.05.2019 24.05.2019
642152 16.03.2019 12.04.2019 07.05.2019 03.06.2019 04.06.2019
642154 16.03.2019 12.04.2019 07.05.2019 03.06.2019 04.06.2019
642156 02.04.2019 01.05.2019 07.05.2019 03.06.2019 04.06.2019
644205 08.05.2019 25.05.2019 30.05.2019 22.06.2019 29.06.2019
Page 1 of 16
649214 08.05.2019 25.05.2019 30.05.2019 22.06.2019 27.08.2019
658877 19.09.2019 17.10.2019 24.10.2019 27.11.2019 05.12.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641337 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SE District sent a letter dated 15.04.2019 and replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 22.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO, and observed that additional queries have been raised by the Appellant in his First Appeal. However contact details of the PIO were duly provided by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 2 of 16
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Written submissions dated 28.05.2021 have been received from PIO, Vigilance stating that the RTI application was transferred to the PIO/East District on 24.04.2019.
Communication dated 03.06.2021 received from PIO/East District reveals that the RTI application was transferred to the PIO/South East District, who is the actual custodian of information. Another communication dated 03.06.2021 has been received from PIO/Addl. DCP, South East District stating that due to ongoing law and order situation and arrangement, he may be exempted from attending the hearing, for which he deputed the ACP/Lajpat Nagar along with SHO and Inspector, RTI Cell to represent him.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant commenced his arguments pointing out that submissions sent by the Respondent to the Commission should have been shared with him, but Respondent has failed to do so. The Appellant also contended that Respondent should be represented by the PIO, which in this case should be the Addl. DCP, South East District, instead the ACP who is junior to the PIO has been deputed to attend the hearing.
Providing a brief background of the matter, the Appellant stated that he had filed a complaint on 03.03.2019, when he came to know that someone fraudulently filed an RTI impersonating on his behalf. The FIR was filed after much persuasion, on 30.03.2019. It is his contention that this lapse of 27 days is in contravention of the Supreme Court decision dated 12.11.2013 and 05.03.2014 in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. which has clearly laid down specific guidelines for registration of FIR in cases pertaining to cognisable offences.
The Appellant further averred that the PIO sent a reply dated 15.04.2019 enclosing a response dated 08.04.2019 which addresses only the RTI application received by the Respondent on 28.03.2019, but did not refer to refer to his email dated 19.03.2019.
Respondent stated that since the complaint filed by the Appellant referred to cheating and impersonation of the Appellant, hence preliminary enquiry was found necessary and approval of the DCP required before registering the FIR. Hence the FIR was registered on 30.03.2019, on completion of the preliminary enquiry.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641338 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2019 seeking information on following points:-
Page 3 of 16The CPIO/ADCP, S-E District sent a letter dated 12.04.2019 and replied as under:-
The PIO sent a copy of DD Entry vide DD No. 328 dated 03.03.2019.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2019 on the ground that the PIO did not provide his contact details nor particulars of the FAA. He was aggrieved on being provided the DD Entry instead of the General Diary/Station Diary and claimed that irrelevant and misleading information had been furnished by the PIO. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 22.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO, noting that additional queries have been raised by the Appellant in his First Appeal. However contact details of the PIO were duly provided by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that the denial of information in this case was wrong since the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, was not applicable. The Appellant placed reliance on the recent decision dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Kr. Srivastava vs. CIC, re-emphasising the legal position with respect to application of the Section 8(1)(h) that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.Page 4 of 16
Respondent stated that upon completion of detailed investigation, the matter was scheduled to be submitted before the Court in April 2021, which got delayed due to the lockdown, following the second wave of the pandemic. The Respondent further stated that copy of the FIR has already been provided and from time to time information about progress of the matter has been updated to the Appellant, who in turn denied the same.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641341 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points regarding number of cognizable complaints received from 01.01.2019 to 31.01.2019:-
The CPIO/ADCP, S-E District sent a letter dated 11.04.2019 and replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2019. He stated his grievance was on account of obstruction of information by the PIO.
The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 22.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO,holding that additional queries have been raised by the Appellant in his First Appeal. However contact details of the PIO were duly provided by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior Page 5 of 16 notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that the PIO's reply reflects that a generic response has been sent without addressing the specific queries raised in the RTI Application. He has further pointed out that PIO has consistently not mentioned the particulars of the FAA in any of his responses, which is violative of provisions of Section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act.
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642152 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, S-E District sent a letter dated 12.04.2019 furnishing the reply as received from the ACP Lajpat Nagar, South East District, New Delhi.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2019 stating that the PIO did not provide his contact details nor particulars of the FAA and obstructed the flow of information by providing an irrelevant reply.
The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 03.06.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO holding that additional queries have been raised by the Appellant in his First Appeal. However contact details of the PIO were duly provided by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that no guideline has been Page 6 of 16 provided by the Respondent in response to his query no. 2. He claimed that the response furnished by the Respondent is inadequate and is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the dissemination of the actual information and hence he requests that penal action should be initiated against the Respondent for violation of the RTI Act.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642154 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SE District sent a letter dated 12.04.2019 and furnished the reply as received from the ACP Lajpat Nagar, SED, New Delhi. The name, designation, official e-mail address and contact number of the official was provided in response to query no. 1 to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2019stating that the PIO did not provide his contact details nor particulars of the FAA and obstructed dissemination of information by providing an irrelevant reply. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 03.06.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that the response to query no. 3 is in contravention of the provisions of the Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.Page 7 of 16
(6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642156 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SE District sent a letter dated 01.05.2019 and replied as under:-
1. Date of FIR is 30.03.2019, that is correct date.
2. SHO Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
3. No action was taken, Because date of FIR is correct.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 03.06.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that he had filed the complaint on 03.03.2019 and the FIR entry reveals that there has been a mistake in recording the date of receipt of the complaint. Hence, he sought a specific reply against the three queries, whereas the reply furnished by the then PIO overlooks the query and an incorrect response has been provided vide letter dated 01.05.2019.
The Respondent present during hearing admitted that there had been a typographical error in the FIR about noting the date of receipt of complaint, which had subsequently been rectified in records.Page 8 of 16
(7) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/644205 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SED sent a letter dated 25.05.2019 and furnished the reply as received from the ACP Lajpat Nagar, SED, New Delhi. Information against query no. 2 was denied invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.05.2019 stating that the PIO did not provide his contact details nor particulars of the FAA and obstructed flow of information by providing an irrelevant reply.
The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 22.06.2019 stated that a fresh report has been obtained from Complaint Branch of South-East District. Hence, as per report of Complaint Branch, the Appellant is apprised that the complaint/Email dated 23.04.2019 of the Appellant has been transferred to East District, Delhi for necessary action. Therefore, the copy of the present appeal along with RTI application of the Appellant is being sent to PIO/East District, Delhi for further information and necessary action.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant contended that the PIO has provided generic and evasive responses and not addressed the specific queries raised by him.Page 9 of 16
(8) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/649214 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SE District sent a letter dated 25.05.2019 and furnished the reply as received from the ACP Lajpat Nagar, SED, New Delhi. While some information against queries 1 and 3 was provided, information against queries 2 and 4 was denied in toto seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.05.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 22.06.2019 stated that a fresh report has been obtained from Complaint Branch of South-East District. Hence, as per report of Complaint Branch, the Appellant is apprised that the complaint/Email dated 23.04.2019 of the Appellant has been transferred to East District, Delhi for necessary action. Therefore, the copy of the present appeal along with RTI application of the Appellant is being sent to PIO/East District, Delhi for further information and necessary action.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant contends that the response furnished by the Respondent so far has been vague and generic and does not answer the queries raised by him.Page 10 of 16
(9) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658877 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2019 seeking information on following points:-
The CPIO/ADCP, SE District sent a letter dated 17.10.2019 and replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2019. The FAA/Dy. Commissioner of Police, SED vide order dated 28.11.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
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, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant stated that even in this case, the reply is contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act and exemption from disclosure of accurate information has been claimed by the Respondent without any justification. The Respondent claimed that progress of the case has been provided from time to time to time to the Appellant, which is strongly contested by the Appellant stating that even information about rectification of the date of Page 11 of 16 complaint in the FIR and particulars of the current IO in charge of the matter have not been communicated to him.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts which emerged from the records and contentions placed forth by the parties during the hearing, several lacunae have been observed in the way the 9 cases have been handled by the Respondent. It is unfortunate to note that while the RTI Act was envisaged to promote transparency by dissemination of information, incorrect application of the provisions of the Act have led to obstruction of dissemination of information in the above cases.
The issues which the Commission wishes to address are:
i) The incorrect application of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, to deny information.
Clearly the PIO has not bothered to either apply his mind while claiming the exemption nor justified such denial before this Commission. Apart from the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Srivastava vs. CIC, cited by the Appellant, in numerous decisions of the Delhi High Court like Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.,; Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors; Union of India vs. Manjit Singh Bali; B.S. Mathur Vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court and many decisions of the Central Information Commission, it has been held repeatedly that disclosure of information should be the norm under the RTI Act and exemption from such disclosure should be only under exceptional circumstances, only when justified by the respective public authority. In the decision of Bhagat Singh, the Delhi High Court had discussed it appropriately in the following words:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.
Thus, merely citing the provision of law would not be sufficient when recourse is taken to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation. No such justification has been provided by the Respondent public authority while denying information in the above cases, which arise out of a complaint filed by the Appellant, who would normally not seek impeding Page 12 of 16 or hindering the process of investigation. Hence, the PIO's replies, mentioned hereinabove, whereby information had been denied on account of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, are hereby set aside. The PIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary is hereby directed to furnish accurate, specific and complete information strictly in terms of the RTI Act, within four weeks of receipt of this order, in the Appeal numbers as mentioned hereinbelow:
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641338- RTI application dated 17.03.2019; CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/644205- query number 2 ofRTI application dated 08.05.2019;
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/649214- queries number 2 and 4 of RTI application dated 08.05.2019; and CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/658877 - RTI application dated 19.09.2019
ii) The incorrect application of Section 8(1)(e) and(j) of the RTI Act, to deny information In appeal number CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/641341, statistical information about total number of cognisable complaints received in the police station has been denied invoking Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. These provisions of law protect "personal" information held by respondents in "fiduciary capacity". Clearly reliance on the above provisions is misplaced and therefore the response of the PIO suffers from patent illegality. Hence, the PIO's reply dated 11.04.2019 is set aside and the current PIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary is hereby directed to furnish a revised reply containing accurate, specific and complete information strictly in terms of the RTI Act. The revised reply should be sent to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order.
Likewise, a revised reply should be sent by the Respondent - the current PIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary with respect to queries 2 and 3 of RTI application dated 16.03.2019 of the second appeal no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642152. The revised reply should be sent to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order.
The Commission notes that the reply against RTI application dated 02.04.2019, in the Second appeal no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642156is factually incorrect as it does not answer the specific queries raised by the Appellant. The PIO's reply dated 01.05.2019 is thus set aside. It is directed that a comprehensive revised reply should be furnished by the current PIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary with respect to the three queries, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
iii) Non-adherence to Section 4(1)(b) and Section 7(8)(iii) In the appeal no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/642154, the PIO's reply to the third query seeking compliance of Section 4(1)(b) is found inappropriate and set aside. The provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act should be mandatorily complied by the public authorities on their own but in this case, even when asked vide Page 13 of 16 RTI query, the same has been denied with a frivolous response. Hence, the currentPIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary is hereby directed to furnish a revised reply with respect to query no. 3 of RTI application dated 16.03.2019, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
All the communications sent by the Respondent in the above cases to the Commission before the hearing should be sent to the Appellant. This practice of sending submissions to the Appellant/Complainant should be mandatorily adhered to in future by the Respondent.
The above directions should be duly complied and the requisite reports should be submitted before the Commission by the currentPIO/Addl. DCP/South East District - Sh. Surendra Chaudhary, by 15.08.2021, failing which suo motu proceedings shall be initiated as per law.
It is noted that the then PIO-Sh. Kumar Gyanesh has been responsible for all of the above lapses in the replies which have caused obstruction in the flow of information on untenable grounds. Moreover, in none of his replies, he has mentioned the particulars about the FAA, as mandated under Section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, it is deemed appropriate that a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE is issued to Sh. Kumar Gyanesh - the then PIO/Addl. DCP, South East District, currently posted as DCP, Supreme Court Security, as intimated by ACP- Sh. Manoj Sinha. The current PIO-Sh. Sh. Surendra Chaudhary shall ensure that this order is duly communicated to the Noticee-Sh. Kumar Gyanesh. Response to the Show Cause Notice should reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the Show Cause hearing.
Before concluding this decision, the Commission wishes to remark that the unnecessary transfer of the RTI application to irrelevant authorities and the complete non application of mind by the FAA in the above appeals has led to delay in adjudication of the cases. These could have been avoided if only the FAA-DCP/South East District would have appropriately adjudicated the cases. The Commission hopes that the public authority would act with more prudence and sensitivity in future while handling RTI matters. Cryptic and evasive replies should be strictly avoided and incorrect application of law and blanket denial of information eschewed, without providing any justification.
The appeals are hereby disposed off with the above observations.
Page 14 of 16Facts emerging in course of SHOW CAUSE Hearing: 18.07.2022 A common reply dated 03.08.2021 in all the aforementioned appeals has been received from the Noticee - Shri Kumar Gyanesh, now posted Dy. Commissioner of Police, stating as follows:
The Noticee was present during the hearing held through virtual means and reiterated his contentions from the aforementioned submissions. He stated during the hearing that lapses as observed in the aforementioned decision occurred unintentionally on his part and he seeks to tender unconditional apology for the same.
Show Cause Decision: 18.07.2022 After hearing the contentions of the Noticee, the Commission is convinced that the denial of information in the above cases were neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the Noticee- Shri Kumar Gyanesh. The apology of the Noticee is accepted as such and the Show Cause proceedings initiated against him are directed to be dropped.Page 15 of 16
It is also noted from the above reply dated 03.08.2021 that the directions issued by the Commission vide the order dated 08.06.2021 had been duly complied with by the current PIO/Addl. DCP, South East District - Shri Surendra Chaudhary as noted from the point wise reply submitted by the Respondent. Considering the above facts, the aforementioned appeals are directed to be closed and files be consigned to record room.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 16 of 16