Central Information Commission
Mr. Manuj Modi vs Comptroller And Auditor General on 6 May, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 6 May 2013
Date of decision : 6 May 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Manuj Modi,
471, Sector 37,
Noida - 201 030.
Name of the Public Authority : O/o. the Director General of Audit,
(Central Expenditure), Indraprastha
Estate, New Delhi - 110 002.
CPIO, National Technical Research
Organization, Block3, Old JNU
Campus, New Delhi110067
The Appellant, Shri Manuj Modi was present.
On behalf of the following Respondent, were present.
i) Shri Saurabh Shukla, CPIO
ii) Shri Manoj Choudhary, Senior Audit Officer
iii) Shri Sudhir,CPIO, NTRO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068
3. Referring to some special audit done by the CAG of the office of the NTRO during which the latter had provided a copy of his biodata to the former after suppressing a part of it, the Appellant had sought a number of information/clarification including the details of the composition of the audit team. The CPIO had declined most of the information on the ground that it related to the NTRO, an organisation exempted from the operation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act under section 24(1). The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the response of the CPIO. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal by reiterating the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. The Appellant argued that both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority were wrong in denying the information. He submitted that the CPIO had wrongly interpreted the provisions of subsection 1 of section 24 of the RTI Act. According to him, the information provided by an exempted organisation to another Central Government public authority may not be disclosed but the CAG was not a Central Government public authority being an independent Constitutional body. Therefore, he submitted the CAG could not take cover under this provision and deny the information even if it had received the information from the NTRO. He also submitted that the CPIO had no ground not to disclose that information which had been exclusively generated in the office of the CAG. In response, the respondents submitted that the CAG had audited the NTRO as a special case and as per the terms of an agreement between the two organisations, the report of the audit had been provided to the Secretary of the organisation and that it could not disclose the information relating to the special audit to anyone else.
CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068
5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made during the hearing. The first issue to be settled is whether the information received by the CAG, a Constitutional authority, from other exempted organisations would qualify for nondisclosure in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This particular subsection reads as follows:
"Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government."
6. The Appellant wants this to be read very literally and narrowly. If the Right to Information (RTI) Act excludes certain organisations even if in a qualified manner, from the operation of its provisions, and extends the exemption even to the information provided by such organisations to other government ministries and departments and agencies, it cannot be the import of the law to allow the Constitutional bodies like the CAG to disclose such information received in confidence. Therefore, in our opinion, the expression Central Government in this subsection would include all public authorities which receive information from the organisations included in the Second Schedule. The CAG cannot be an exception and cannot be expected to disclose the information received from the exempted organisations like the NTRO, as in this case.
7. Now, coming to the various requests made in the RTI applications, we CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068 are of the view that the CPIO should revisit the relevant records including the file noting and find out if there is any information which has been exclusively generated by the CAG and its officers in respect of the Appellant's queries without extracting, directly or indirectly, any information provided by the NTRO and, in case that is so, to provide the same to the Appellant within 10 working days of the receipt of this order. Needless to say, no information provided by the NTRO, in whatever form, should be disclosed.
8. The Appellant had also invoked the proviso to the above subsection relating to the violation of human rights and demanded that the information should be disclosed as it related to the violation of his own human rights. He illustrated this by pointing out that some newspaper had published certain reports allowing to the special audit and casting aspersions on him thereby causing hurt and humiliation. We do not find his arguments convincing enough. Just because some newspaper had reported something disparaging about him, it cannot be concluded that the NTRO could be held responsible for it. The allegation of human rights violation contemplated in this particular subsection should be against the exempted organisation. There is nothing before us to show that the NTRO or the CAG has caused any such violation. This is no ground for disclosing any such information held or supplied by the NTRO.
9. Both the appeals are disposed of psychotically.
10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001740 & CIC/SM/A/2013/000068