Central Information Commission
Ashutosh Gautam vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 31 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/ICARH/A/2022/606826
Ashutosh Gautam ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ICAR Hqrs, RTI Cell, Room No. 207 A,
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi -110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/03/2023
Date of Decision : 29/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2021 seeking the following information:1
"1. Provide the certified copies of all relevant documents, available in files / folders of Vigilance Division of ICAR Hqrs. (in short (VDICARH) vide which action, if any, has been taken by the VDICARH and on the complaints lodged, w.e.f. 01.03.2017 till 31.10.2021, by Applicant Ashutosh Gautam till date. I would specify the relevant documents after inspection of concerned files and folders.
2. Provide the certified copies of all relevant documents, available in files/folders of VDICARH vide which action, if any, has been taken by the VDICARH on the complaint dated 04.07.2020 lodged by Applicant Ashutosh Gautam till date against the official/s of VDICARH dealing with the complaint nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 2009. I would specify the relevant documents after inspection of concerned files and folders.
3. Provide the certified copies of all relevant documents, available in files /folders of VDICARH vide which action, if any, has been taken by the VDICARH on the complaints of corruption, financial irregularities and misuse of official position lodged by complainants since January 2017 till date. I would specify the relevant documents after inspection of concerned files and folders.
4. Provide the number of Show Cause Notices and copies thereof issued by VDICARH to Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, the then Legal Adviser and present Director, ICAR Hqrs. (in short Shri S.K.Singh) w.r.t. complaints lodged against him regarding corruption or/and financial irregularities or/and misuse of official position (if any) or/and w.r.t. Shri S.K.Singh's illegal appointment to the post of Legal Adviser, ICAR and dealt with in files / folders of VDICARH or / and Estt. I Section of ICAR Hqrs..
5. Provide the certified copies of the action taken by VDICARH in compliance of order dated 28.06.2017 circulated by DoP&T vide it's OM No. 11/02/2019- IR dated 27.01.2020 (Copy Enclosed) and also endorsed by ICAR's endorsement dated 03.03.2020 issued vide F.No. GAC-21-16/2020-CDN (Copy Enclosed).
6. Allow the inspection of aforesaid information / documents / files relating to aforesaid information and also allow to take relevant certified copies of documents, which I shall intimate after inspection of aforesaid information / documents / files relating to aforesaid information."2
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 06.12.2021 and stated as under:
"Point 1-3:
DOPT vide its OM No. 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14.08.2013 on the subject -- Disclosure of personal Information under R11 Act, has referred to one of the decision of CIC (CIC/SM/A/2013/0000058 dated 26.06.2013), wherein CIC, while citing the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R Deshpande Vs CIC and others (SLP(c) N. 27734/2012), has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action of the authorities might have taken on these complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provisions of 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Hence, requested information is exempt from disclosure under Rule 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point 4:
The information desired by the applicant is related to an individual officer of the council and thus qualifies to be third party information under RTI Act, 2005.
Hence, requested information is exempt from disclosure under Rule 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point 5:
The action taken in the matter is available on ICAR website in public domain in RTI Proactive Disclosure under Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act.
Point 6:
DOPT vide its OM No. 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14.08.2013 on the subject -- Disclosure of personal information under RTI Act, has referred to one of the decision of CIC (CIC/SM/A/2013/0000058 dated 26.06.2013), wherein CIC, while citing the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R Deshpande Vs CIC and others (SLP(c) N. 27734/2012), has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action of the authorities might have taken on these complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provisions of 8(1)0) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, requested information is exempt from disclosure under Rule 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Further, as per CIC Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 in Shri Satya Vijay Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission "the file notings in vigilance 3 files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of RTI Act 2005.
Further, the files contain the names of officers who have deliberated in the matter. The disclosure of the information would expose the officers involved to retribution or other agendas as observed by the CIC in CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.
In light of the above, the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) and 8(1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 07.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the alleged wrong denial of information by the CPIO, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Somnath, U.S. (Krishi Bhawan) & CPIO present in person.
The Appellant while narrating the factual context of RTI Application at length expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that copy of documents sought by him pertains to the complaint filed by him.
The CPIO while reiterating the contents of averred reply submitted that a point wise along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the Appellant. He further apprised the Commission that Appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who filed as many as 12 RTI Applications and 6 First Appeals during the peak of second phase of COVID 19 era.
Decision:
the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the queries raised by the Appellant through impugned RTI Application are vague and indeterminate which 4 concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se and also contains the elements of personal information of third party officers which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Here, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law.
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged 5 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied ) Similarly, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned the same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the 6 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is furthermore invited 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:
"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..."
Nonetheless, the point wise reply provided by the CPIO is in the spirit of the RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. In view of this, no scope for further relief lies in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8