Central Information Commission
V Suresh vs National Bal Bhavan on 19 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NBALB/A/2017/157340-BJ
Mr. V. Suresh
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
National Bal Bhavan
Kotla Road
New Delhi - 110002
2. CPIO,
Jawahar Bal Bhavan
Public Garden Road
Nampalty, Hyderabad
Telangana - 500001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.11.2018
Date of Decision : 19.11.2018
Date of RTI application 01.05.2017
CPIO's response 17.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 02.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 28.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of District Level Selections for "Bal Shree Scheme" by Hyderabad District, the age limit for Bal Bhawan Membership, whether it was compulsory for a child to be a member of Bal Bhawan for participating in selections for Bal Shree Award, all the competitors who participated in Hyderabad District Level Selections, or renewed the membership, if yes, the date of membership Page 1 of 8 or renewal of membership in respect of the selected candidates of creative performance i.e. in dance and music etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 17.05.2017 for points 3 & 4 forwarded the RTI application to the CPIO, Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Hyderabad. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.06.2017 stated that the PIO, National Bal Bhavan had responded in the matter within the prescribed time limit.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. V. Suresh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, PIO and Mrs. Asha Bhattacharjee, ADSC in person and Mrs. Sowbhagya Lakshmi, CPIO; through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and correct information had not been furnished to him. Being a parent he voiced his concern in respect of the lack of transparency in the criteria adopted by the Respondent regarding the selection of students under the "Bal Shree Scheme". It was categorically stated that eligibility criteria of students participating in the said Scheme and selection process pursued by the Public Authority was subjective thereby discouraging and demotivating to the children in the age group of 10 to 16 years. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the money spent on the Scheme was from Govt. of India exchequer and that National Bal Bhavan was solely responsible for the selection process. Certain technical inadequacies in the scheme were also flagged. Moreover, the results of the selection process were not put out in the Public domain. The Suptdt. Bal Bhavan admitted that there was no facility for digitization and display of results. While replying, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA. Admitting the inherent weaknesses in the procedure adopted for selection of students in the "Bal Shree Scheme", it was argued that due to the complexities of the selection process, lack of adequate staff and funds, they were undertaking the implementation of the scheme with limited resources. On a query from the Commission regarding the conditionalities for the children of age groups, 10-12/12-14/14-16 years, it was informed that there were no guidelines to select children under different age groups. The compiled results were notified on the notice board and the selected candidates only could be informed on phone. Therefore, there was no laid down criteria for completing the whole selection process. It was submitted that enough flexibilities was available for selection of students at the District and the State level. Due to limitation of the seats, only a few children could be accommodated in the scheme. There was no connectivity of the District level portal and the State portal with NBB.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 12.11.2018 wherein while reiterating the chronological sequences of the replies received, it was submitted that he had approached the concerned authorities not only through RTI application but also through various grievances submitted to Hon'ble Prime Minister Office, Hon'ble President Secretariat, DPG to know the position of his daughter in the merit list in the selection process, but all were in vain as the information desired was not received by him. While raising questions Page 2 of 8 on transparency and reply to RTI applications, it was submitted that a consolidated report from Superintendent, Bal Bhawan, Hyderabad vide letter dated 24.07.2017 was received wherein it was informed that "there was no facility of digitization in display of the results online. So the results of the District Levels were announced to selected candidates personally by phone". Aggrieved with the above replies and casual manner of dealing with the RTI applications by the Respondent Public Authority, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to take appropriate action in the form of penalty on concerned officials.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, National Bal Bhavan, New Delhi dated 14.11.2018 wherein it was submitted that the PIO, NBB had forwarded the online RTI application to the Asstt. Director (Science) & Incharge of Programme and Bal Shree Sections of NBB being a Deemed PIO of National Bal Bhavan concerned with running of Bal Shree Honour Scheme of NBB online who had provided the point-wise information to the Applicant online through RTIMIS portal within one day on 03.05.2017 and endorsed the hardcopy of such information/reply to the PIO, NBB. Thereafter, the NBB had also forwarded the reply of Deemed PIO of NBB to the Applicant by speed post vide their letter dated 04.05.2017. It was further submitted that the CPIO and Superintendent of Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Secunderabad of Hyderabad District furnished information on points 03 & 04 to the Applicant. It was further submitted that the Applicant had filed his First Appeal online for non-furnishing of information on points 03 & 04 to the then First Appellate Authority and Director of NBB instead of preferring his First Appeal to the FAA of Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Hyderabad. Against the First Appeal, the FAA of National Bal Bhavan had examined the whole case and found that the sufficient information on all the points i.e. 01 to 05 of his online RTI application had been provided to the Applicant through online and offline within the prescribed time limit.
Accordingly, the FAA of NBB vide order dated 28.06.2017 duly explained all the concerned facts, circumstances and disposed off his 1st Appeal with the advice to file 1st Appeal to the concerned FAA of Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Hyderabad/Bal Bhavan, Secunderabad. Therefore, in view of all aforesaid facts it was prayed to the Commission to close the case or give the suitable directions to CPIO/authorities of Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Hyderabad/Bal Bhavan, Secunderabad.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 3 of 8
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 in setting out a practical regime for transparency and accountability in the affairs of Public Authorities were observed by the Courts in the following matters. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shonkh Technology International Ltd. v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region, Appellate Authority and United Telecom Limited v. State Information Commission Maharashtra Konkan Region and Ors, W.P. Nos. 2912 and 3137 of 2011 decided on 01.07.2011 held as under Page 4 of 8
"The RTI Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble of the RTI Act itself refers to this aspect and the constitutional principles enshrined in several articles of the Constitution. It is very clearly postulated that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Therefore, the RTI Act seeks to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount nature of democratic ideals"
The High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
Page 5 of 8"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."Page 6 of 8
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that for a significant and an important scheme like Bal Shree Scheme, for selection of meritorious students, there was a lack of clarity, transparency and decision making at the District, State and National Level which requires a complete revamp and reformulation of the policy to benefit the young minds who are going to be piloting the major National Level Programmes in future. The Commission therefore directs the Jt. Secretary, MHRD (School Education Department) to re-examine the contours of the schemes and to ensure that the revised scheme is placed on its website not later than 60 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Appellant and the Commission. The Commission also directs the Respondent to place a copy of the decision of the Commission before the next Board of Governors meeting for further necessary action.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 19.11.2018
Copy to:
Page 7 of 8
1- The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 2- Ms. Shallu Jindal, Chairman, National Bal Bhavan, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
3. Mr. R. C. Meena, Jt. Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Literacy, M/o HRD, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 Page 8 of 8