Central Information Commission
Shruti Kukreja vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 28 December, 2022
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/PBSEC/A/2021/128894
Shruti Kukreja ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Prasar Bharti Secretariat. RTI Cell,
Prasar Bharti House, Tower C,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
CPIO
Prasar Bharti Secretariat, GA Section,
Prasar Bharti House, Tower C,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
CPIO
AII India Radio Sales
Division/Marketing Division,
Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 27/07/2022
Date of Decision : 16/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/02/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/03/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 06/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/07/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Please supply me Copy of Report (Observation) of Committee Comprising of Retd. Hon'ble Justice Ms. Indermeet Kaur Former Judge of High Court of Delhi Ms. Deepali Khanna, Former Additional Secretary, Ministry of I & B and Shri K. G. Suresh, Director General, Indian Institute of Mass Communication appointed by the Former Chairman, Prasar Bharati regarding Radio Programme "Chaandi Ke Parde Se.
2. Please supply me all Copies of Complaints and all Reminders addressed by The C.E.O, Prasar Bharati & Prasar Bharati Secretariate Office to the Police Commissioner Shri Amulya Patnaik, Various Delhi Police's office/s and Tilak Marg, Police Station regarding some Bill-Board put by someone against Member Finance Prasar Bharati Mr. Rajeev Singh & or Hon'ble Former Minister Mr. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore in lyuton area, NDMC Area & or other parts of Delhi/ New Delhi.
3. Please supply me all Copies of Complaints and all Reminders addressed by The C.E.O. Prasar Bharati & Prasar Bharati Secretariate Office to the Police Commissioner Shri Amulya Patnaik, Various Delhi Police's office/s and Tilak Marg Police Station regarding Programme "Chaandi Ke Parde Se" and M/S Superads, Producer of Radio Prog. "Chaandi Ke Parde Se"
4 Please supply me all Copies of Complaints and all Reminder Ad ressed by The C.E.O., Prasar Bharat'. and -Prasar Bharat Secretariate Office regarding some Pamphlets sent by someone to the Secretaries, All/ Few Govt. Ministries; All/ Few I.A.S. Officers based in Delhi & in State Governments, Residents of any Colony/ Colonies of EAST-Delhi and other Parts of Delhi.
5. Please supply me Copy/ Copies of all letters Replies received by The C.E.O. Prasar Bharati & Prasar Bharati Office from The Chief Commissioner Delhi Police, Delhi Police's other offices, and Police Post-Tilak Marg in reply of Complaints/ Reminders sent by The C.B.Q. Prasar Bharati and Prasar Bharati Office those are mentioned over here in Para 2,3 & 4.
6. Please supply me copy/ Copies of yours's as well as of Prasar Bharat' Office ALL LETTER/ LETTERS addressed to the Ministry of I & B regarding requesting them to refer the above-mentioned case (Cited in Para 2, 3 and 4 above) as well as all/ any kind of investigation in the case/s regarding Programme "Chaandi Ke Parde Se" to CBI.
7. Please supply me copy of letter Dt 30th Sept, 2019 and other letters if any Sent by the Ministry of 'I & B having stated that CBI did not found any Merit in the case of "Chaandi Ke Parde Se" or & in case of putting Bill-Boards in New Delhi NDMC area against Mr. Rajeev Singh & Hon'ble Former Minister Mr. Rajyavardhan Singh 2 Rathore. Please supply all Copies of letters exchanged between C.E.O., Prasar Bharati & Prasar Bharati Office AND Ministry of I & B.
8. a) Please inform me the names' of all Hindi Film Based Programmes supplied by Private Producers those have been broadcast by All India Radio from 2010 to 2020 on Revenue sharing Basis! Model.
b) Please inform me the individual Gross Revenue Generated by all such Radio Programmes of Private Producers broadcast between 2010 to 2020 Those have been broadcast on Revenue sharing basis/ model as defined in 8(a) above. Please inform me the name of all kind of Programmes (All Genre) supplied by Private Producers those have been broadcast on All India Radio from 2010 to 2020 on Revenue sharing Basis/ Model.
c) Please inform me the individual Gross Revenue Generated by all such Radio Programme of Private Producers broadcast between 2010 to 2020.
10. Please inform me the name of any & as well as. all Radio Programmes (Except Cricket Programmes) produced by All India Radio them Selves, those had earned revenue more than Rs. 2.00 Crs. (Rs. Two Crores) io Total including revenue given by Govt. Ministries to AIR between the year
(a). 2010 to 2020
(b) 2000 to 2010 (c ) 1990 to 2000
(d).1980 to 1990
(e). 1970 to 1980.
(f).1960 to 1970
(g).1950 to 1960 i.e. Maximum Possible Information that is available since 1950 with All India Radio."
The CPIO/ADP (Ops. Division) furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 12.02.2021 stating as follows:-
i.) "For point nos. 1. 6 & 7 the sought information can not be disclosed as per Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.
ii.) For point nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, your RTI is being transferred to CPIO (GA section), PBS, New Delhi, as the sought information pertains to them. iii.) For point nos.8. 9 & 10, your RTI is being transferred to CPIO, Sales Division & CPIO Mktg. Division, AIR, New Delhi, as the sought information pertains to them."3
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2021.
The CPIO(GA section), PBS, New Delhi furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.05.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 2, 3, 4 & 5:- Informed that the information is exempted under Section 8(i) (h) and 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it is a subject matter of inquiry/investigation."
In regard to her First Appeal, FAA's order dated 06.07.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Advocate Anant Garg and Sreejita Mitra thorugh intra-video conference.
Respondent: S A Tripathi, DDG (PB) & CPIO; Ashish Potnis, DDG (Sales); Jagat Sungh Chauhan, DD(GA) and Shailendra, PEX (B&R), AIR present through intra- video conference.
Advocate Anant Garg firstly clarified that the Appellant is the advocate for this firm named M/s Super Ads regarding whose outstanding dues the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to. He also restricted the relief sought at this stage to point no.1 of the RTI Application. To better appreciate his contentions, the written record of his statements during the hearing submitted during the pendency of the decision on 30.09.2022 is reproduced hereunder:
"...that the information in question is regarding demanding copy of a Hon'ble Committee's decision Formed by the Prasar Bharati to decide the issue of releasing the Payment of one Radio Programme "CHANDI KE PARDE SE". The Committee was comprising of three members, i.e. Hon'ble Retd. High Court Judge, Ms. lndermeet Kaur, Head of Mass Communication Dept., and one Former Addl. Secretary of I & B. The said committee has given a report on or around 8th Feb., 2019, which is being concealed till Date. The outcome of report is not being revealed, inspite of our various RTI Applications. lt is submitted that the lnformation to us was illegally denied by the respondents.4
The said Hon'ble Committee called M/s Super Ads for presenting its side on the issue before them. The evidence Documents issued by the said Hon'ble Committee regarding calling them to attend meeting are being enclosed herewith (Page 7 to 16). They attended the Meeting/s as well as given written submission to the Hon'ble Committee. The said Hon'ble Committee issued Order seemed to be in their favour regarding releasing of due Payment above Rs. 6.90 CR which was detained by Prasar Bharati on false & wrong grounds...
lt is submitted that the aforesaid Hon'ble committee delivered their Order/its report on around 8th Feb., 2019 to Prasar Bharati, i.e. concluded their findings and probably issued Order in favour of M/s Super Ads- The Respondent also agreed before your good self in the hearing that the Committee has concluded the subject and already delivered the order.
Your Honour, the Copy of Order the aforesaid Hon'ble Committee was never been delivered to M/s Super Ads, i.e. concerned Party, who participated in the Meetings of Hon'ble Committee Formed by Prasar Bharati."
S A Tripathi, DDG (PB) & CPIO submitted that his objection at the verry outset is that the Appellant is a third party in the matter as the information sought for is not of her own. He further submitted that there was an investigation carried out within the department and also by the Vigilance department and at present the case is sub judice with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the first hearing is scheduled on 02.09.2022.
Since the facts on record did not provide for any reason to deny the information on point no.1 of the RTI Application to the Appellant as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, i.e neither the CPIO's reply, nor the FAA's order or the written submissions of S A Tripathi, DDG (PB) & CPIO filed prior to the hearing contained any input to this effect, the bench attempted to understand the issue for determination. In doing so, a series of questions were put forth to the said CPIO regarding the genesis of the averred committee; the subject matter of alleged 'investigation'; the status of the 'investigation'; subject matter of the said Court case; the rationale for invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act etc. to all of which, the CPIO repeatedly emphasized that he is not aware of any of these details but vehemently believes that there was 'some' investigation and he also argued that all officers of Prasar Bharti are NOT supposed to be informed about confidential information regarding investigations and Court cases.5
The Rep. of the Appellant then sought to clarify to the bench that the Court matter being referred to here is a Recovery suit filed by M/s Super Ads against AIR (Akashwani)/Prasar Bharti itself and not any matter of 'investigation' as understood within the meaning of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further stated that the opposite party has been issued a notice to file their written statement against the recovery suit and that is yet to be filed and that is all there is to the claim of "sub judice". It was also argued that under the RTI Act, the CPIO is supposed to justify the denial of the information as per the exemption clauses of the RTI Act and mere utterance of an exemption clause does not suffice.
The matter was reserved.
Decision:
The Commission having heard the submissions of S A Tripathi, DDG (PB) & CPIO is rather flabbergasted as it appears that the CPIO was not aware of the mandate of the RTI Act or of his statutory duties stipulated thereunder as he sought to seemingly evade providing any insights into the factual background or the rationale behind denying the information to the Appellant. The submissions of the CPIO (despite being afforded with adequate time and repeated opportunities to speak) remained abstract and disjointed as for one he claimed there was an investigation and later maintained the stand that he believes there was 'some' investigation, the specifics of which is not known to him.
The Commission takes grave exception to the callous approach of S A Tripathi, DDG (PB) & CPIO displayed during the hearing proceedings as it will not be out of place to remark that he expressed no inclination to assist the bench in understanding the narrative of the Respondent office for denying the information sought for at point no.1 of the instant RTI Application to the Appellant. Here, an observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner, 146 (2008) DLT 385 dated 03.12.2007 is relevant beyond any reasonable doubt:
"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 6 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. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information." Emphasis Supplied The foregoing stance finds more resonance in the fact that the sub judice matter referred to by the CPIO was in fact a recovery suit filed by the Appellant's client and not a case of investigation/apprehension of offenders or prosecution that is touted to be a reason for denying the information under the garb of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) exempts:
"(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"
Now, suffice to say that the CPIO appears to have miserably failed to justify the denial of the information on point no.1 of the instant RTI Application as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act which stipulates that:
"(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Having observed as above, the Commission is unable to appreciate any of the vague and incoherent submissions put forth by the CPIO during the hearing. Similarly, the facts on record also do not provide for even a minute ground to understand the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application.
Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit point no.1 of the instant RTI Application and provide the available information to the Appellant. Yet, according a liberal view to the 'unexplained apprehensions' of the CPIO regarding the disclosure of information, the Commission accords the liberty to him to redact such categories of information which may be particularly hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act considering the sanctity of the presiding members of the averred Committee, i.e if 7 deemed necessary, remarks/noting(s), disclosure of which may be hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act in terms of "(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;" may be redacted by the CPIO in consonance with the provision of Section 10 of the RTI Act. Similarly, if the report entails information related to any other third-party firm other than M/s Super Ads, then such information of the third-party entities may also be redacted from the available report.
The information to be provided in compliance with this order shall be provided free of cost by the CPIO to the Appellant.
The said directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8