Central Information Commission
Manisha Singh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 11 January, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/174234
Manisha Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, OSD,
Central Vigilance Commission,
(PIDPI Resolution Cell),
Satarkata Bhawan,
GPO Complex,
A -Block, INA,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/01/2021
Date of Decision : 11/01/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/10/2018
CPIO replied on : 16/10/2018
First appeal filed on : 20/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 01/11/2018
Second Appeal dated : 14/12/2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant sought information about action taken on her complaint no. Conf/CFM5557/18 on the following 5 points :-1
1. Provide the certified copy of complete the note-sheet on which the action, if any, has been taken by CVC on above referred complaint no. Conf/CFM5557/18.
2. Intimate the day today movement and action taken by CVC on her complaint no. Conf/CFM5567/18.
3. Provide the certified copy of complete note-sheet and correspondence part of CVC's file on which above referred complaint no. Conf/CFM5557/18 is being examined by Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi.
4. Intimate the procedure and time limit prescribed by CVC for taking action on complaint filed under PIDPI Resolution.
5. Intimate the estimated time limit within which taking action on above referred complaint would be taken by CVC.
The CPIO denied information under the provisions of Public Interest and Protection of Informer (PIDPI) Resolution and under Section 8(1)(e) & (g) of the RTI Act, through his letter dated 16.10.2018.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2018. FAA 's order dated 05.12.2018 denied information under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Anurag Rawal. (Arrived after the conclusion of the hearing) Respondent: Wormila Jasmine K, DS & CPIO present through intra video- conferencing.
The Appellant sent her written submissions wherein it has been stated as under:2
"I. So far as citing Clause 4 (i) of PIDPI Resolution for denying the information by the CPIO & FAA, their orders are hit by Section 22 of RTI, Act, 2004. In addition, it has been held by CIC in its order dated 31.12.2009 of Hon'ble CIC passed in Mangla Ram Jat vs. Banaras Hindu University, Institute of Medical Sciences that information can only be denied only on the basis of exceptions mentioned in Section 8 and 9 of RTI Act, 2005.
II. So far as citing order of CIC passed in Shri R.N. Dwivedi vs. Central Vigilance Commissioner CICWB/A/2008/01082 for denying the information by the CPIO & FAA, it is submitted that the facts and circumstances of order of CIC passed in Shri RN. Dwivedi vs.Central Vigilance Commissioner CICWB/A/2008/01082 are quite different because in that case the Appellant was seeking information about a complaint which was lodged against him by some other person. While in the present case the complainant herself is willing to know the information about action taken on her complaint made to CVC.
2. It is apparent from impugned orders that both the CPIO & FAA are concerned about the disclosure of identity of complainant, but their concern is baseless and misconceived because the Applicant herself made it clear in her RTI Application & First Appeal that complaint no. Conf/CFM5557/18 (about which the information was sought from CVC) was filed by the Applicant/Appellant herself. Needless to say that complainant is well aware of her identity and she, being the complainant, has right to know the fate of her complainant made to CVC.
3. The statement of CPIO and FAA to the effect that the identity of the Complainant cannot be confirmed or denied as the complaint was made under PIDPI Resolution is misconceived because the complainant, in response to CVC's letter dated 25.05.2018, had already confirmed her identity vide her letter dated 11.06.2018 sent to CVC. The CPIO or FAA, if they were willing, could confirm the identity of complainant from the address given in her complaint and in the RTI Application."
The CPIO submitted that as per PIDPI Resolution, the identity of the Complainant is sacred and except for a few officers of the concerned section of CVC, no other officer is entitled to know the contents or the originator of a PIDPI Complaint.
3Decision In the facts of the instant case, the Commission observes that the then CPIO & the present CPIO have mindlessly relied on the provisions of PIDPI Resolution to deny the information sought for in the RTI Application and have further invoked Section 8(1)(g) and (e) of the RTI Act. The reasoning accorded for invoking the said exemption clauses is also completely misplaced as the question of revealing the identity of the Complainant does not arise as the Appellant is herself the Complainant, similarly, mere absence of larger public interest does not validate the applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It was incumbent upon the CPIO to have justified the existence of a fiduciary relationship in the matter vis-à-vis the records sought for by the Appellant. It is furthermore irksome to note that the FAA has also reiterated the CPIO's reply in a cyclostyled manner without even ascertaining the merits of the said reply. Moreover, attention of the CPIO & the FAA is drawn towards Section 22 of the RTI Act which provides for as under:
22. Act to have overriding effect.--The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Adverting to the aforesaid provision, the CPIO's & FAA's reliance on the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution is clearly inappropriate. The only scope for exemption under the RTI Act pertinent in the matter is if disclosure of the records pertains to action taken against any third party, in which case, the records limited to the third party would be subject to denial under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
4Notwithstanding the aforesaid, in cases like these, as a principle of natural justice, the Complainants should be invariably communicated with the outcome of the action taken on their Complaints. In the instant case therefore, the Commission now directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide factual and specific information as sought for therein after redacting the particulars of any third party which may figure in the relevant records. This should be done in consonance with the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act which allows for severing the exempted information. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, the Commission notes that the Respondent office has been routinely denying information under RTI Act related to Complaints under PIDPI or otherwise by following a rather cyclostyled CPIO's reply and FAA's order with absolutely no scrutiny of the actual information sought for in the RTI Applications. The said conduct of the CPIO & FAA amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the implementation of the RTI regime within CVC as it is commonplace that a major chunk of the RTI Applications received by the CVC seeks information related to Complaints filed with it and therefore such template responses will stifle the purport of the RTI Act.
In view of this, a copy of this order is marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission and for taking corrective steps to restore the regimen of transparency and probity in the matters pertaining to the Complaints filed with CVC under PIDPI or otherwise.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani(सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
5
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
First Appellate Authority
Central Vigilance Commission, OSD,
Satarkata Bhawan, GPO Complex,
A- Block, INA, New Delhi
--(For taking note of the adverse observations of the Commission and for taking corrective action) 6