Central Information Commission
Karthik Rangavajhula vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2023/622138
Shri Karthik Rangavajhula निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Unique Identification Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.08.2024
Date of Decision : 07.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2023
PIO replied on : 02.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 16.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. List of all 'consumer services' delivered by the government of India and/or other public authorities for which the 'corresponding service' in the aadhar authentication ecosystem is used?
2. List of all 'subsidies' delivered by the government of India and other public authorities for which the 'corresponding service' aadhar authentication ecosystem is used?
3. List of all 'benefits' delivered by the government of India and other public authorities for which the 'corresponding service' aadhar authentication ecosystem is used?
4. If you don't possess the list/record of 'consumer services', 'subsidies' and 'benefits' which is otherwise claimed by you vide the public-portal, then please list all the governmental agencies and/or public authorities that use the aadhar authentication ecosystem?
5. Please provide yester versions of legislative framework including circulars, gazette notifications, government rules and regulations, judgments and other such guidance, that was/is in force prior to the passage of AADHAR ACT on 12/07/2016"
The CPIO, Director, UIDAI vide letter dated 02.05.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 4"In respect of Planning Commission notification dated 28.01.2009, Please see the link provided below:
https://uidai.gov.in/images/notification_28_jan 2009.pdf Further, you may also visit the official website of UIDAI for any other Gazette, Notification, orders etc. please visit UIDAI website the link is provided below: https://uidai.gov.in"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2023. The FAA, DDG, UIDAI vide order dated 19.05.2023 held as under:-
"1. Now, after careful examination of the records, your above referred first appeal received via email dated 16.05.2023 with regard to your RTI application vide Registration No. UIDAI/R/T/23/00179 dated 17.04.2023, is disposed of as the complete information has been provided by CPIO (Auth) vide letter no. 11020/51/2012/UIDAI Auth-I dated 12.05.2023 for your RTI application and is found to be in order. However, for your reference, the hyper links are provided in the attachment to this email, which can be clicked on."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 26.06.2024 has been received from the Director, Legal Division, UIDAI reiterating the reply sent on 02.05.2023 and stating that information sought by the complainant had been duly provided on the basis of records available with the public authority.
Another written submission dated 03.07.2024 has been received from the Director, Authentication and Verification Division, UIDAI stating that PIO had already furnished reply on 12.05.2023 and the First Appeal was duly decided vide order dated 19.05.2023. The PIO had replied stating as under:
1-3. In this regard, it is informed that information sought by you is presumptive in nature and calls for analyses and interpretation. Hence, information seeking clarification, conducting analysis and conducting non-specific records from the CPIO is not covered within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.
4. In this regard you may refer list of live requesting entities i.e., AUAs/KUAs available on UIDAI website at following link: https://uidai.gov.in/images/resource/List of AU As KUAs as on 16-06-2022.pdf.
7. In this regard you may refer Aadhaar Authentication History for which FAQs is available on UIDAI website at following link: https://uidai.gov.in/en/contact-
support/have- any-question/305-english-uk/faqs/aadhaar online-services/aadhaar- authentication- history.html.
8. a, b) In this regard you may refer Annual Reports available on UIDAI website on following link: https://uidai.gov.in/en/media-resources/uidai- documents/ annual- reports.html. Further, the Aadhaar (Pricing of Aadhaar Authentication Services) Regulations, 2021 and the Aadhaar (Pricing of Aadhaar Authentication Services) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (No. 2 of 2023) may also be referred in this regard, which is available on following link through UIDAI website:
Page 2 of 4https://uidai.gov.in/images/news/Notification- dated-14-10-21.pdf and https://uidai.gov.in/images/Published_Gazette Notification 02 of 2023 pdf, respectively.
c) In this regard it is to inform you that information sought cannot be made available to you as it is exempted as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A copy of the detailed written submission dated 03.07.2024 has been duly marked to the Complainant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Revathi Suresh Kumar - Director, Legal Division, UIDAI and Shri Sanjay Yadav - Director, Authentication and Verification Division, UIDAI were present during hearing.
The Respondents reiterated their contentions from the PIO's reply and the detailed written submissions dated 26.06.2024 and 03.07.2024 filed before the Commission, duly supported by the relevant annexures stating that the information as deemed appropriate under the terms and conditions of the RTI Act, had already been furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions averments of both parties, it is noted that appropriate reply had been sent by the Respondents, furnishing information as available on record and as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is noted that the written submissions dated 26.06.2024 and 03.07.2024 filed by the Respondents before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information. Since a copy of the written submission dated 26.06.2024 by the Director, Legal Division, has not been sent to the Applicant, the PIO/ Director, Legal Division is hereby directed to send the Complainant a copy of the written submission dated 26.06.2024 with relevant annexures as filed before the Commission, through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter.
The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case and hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
Hence the case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)