Central Information Commission
Shri Amit Sikka vs Ministry Of Home Affairs, Ministry Of ... on 13 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.SA/UG/f5480/g0u5 dated 15.12.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Amit Sikka
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Ministry of Overseas Indians' Affairs (MoIA)
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW)
Facts:
These are three RTI applications moved by Shri Amit Sikka of Gurgaon, Haryana before the Secretary to the President, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MHFW) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The first of these applications addressed to the President of India was transferred by the MHA to Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) on 19.8.08, well after the five days mandated for transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the application was further transferred by the Foreigners' Division MHA and the Ministry of Rural Development to the MoIA on 20.8.08 and 25.8.08. The applications were received by the MoIA and were in turn transferred to the MoH&FW by MOIA on 1.8.08, 25.7.07 & 28.8.08 and to the MoH&FW by the Dental Council of India (DCI) on 28.8.08, to which the matter was transferred back by the MHF&W on 28.8.08. Finally the application received a response from MoH&FW on 15.9.08 and from the DCI on 18.9.08, as follows:
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE "Currently as per Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 only Indian citizens are allowed to practice modern system of medicine in the country. A proposal is under consideration in the Ministry for allowing Overseas Citizens of India to practice modern system of medicine in the country.
The Government keeps sending delegation of experts to various countries for assessment of medical education system. The medical and dental qualifications are recognized in consultation with the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India respectively. The recognition of qualifications once granted is not for ever. It may be withdrawn at any time if the Government comes 1 to the conclusion that the conclusion that the quality of education being imparted by the medical/ dental institution is below standard."
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA "In this connection, it may be stated that India Citizens having obtained their BDS degrees from the above countries submitted their requests to the Central Govt. DCI at the relevant point of time along with detailed infrastructural facilities in terms of teaching staff equipment, duration of the course etc available in those institut8ions from which they had obtained their degrees and requested for recognition of the same under section 10 (4) of the Dentists Act, 1948. As per the general practice the DCI examine the documents/ syllabus/ other facilities in those institutions so submitted and if it comes to the conclusion that the standard of those degrees of foreign countries is at par with the Indian standard of dental education, then it recommends to the Central Govt. recognition of those degrees when held by Indian Citizens for issuing the requisite notification u/s 10 (4) of the Dentists Act, 1948. The recommendations of the DCI Were on the basis of documents submitted and not by visiting institutions of above countries in question. Once the requisite notification is issued the foreign degrees of those above countries continue to be recognized unless otherwise decided by the competent authority. No dental degree of institution in Burma has so far been recognized."
In the meantime, not having received the response of MHFW, appellant Shri Sikka moved his first appeal before the MOIA on 16.9.08, as follows:
"I would request your good self to please look into the matter by disclosing the true facts as to why the Health Ministry is reluctant to issue necessary instructions to the Dental Council of India. The Health Ministry is transferring the responsibility on the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, as are all of the other Ministries. On the other hand your good self is of the opinion that the Health Ministry has to issue the necessary permission to practice. Also, as requested in my RTI application, what was the response given by the Ministry of Health to letter no. OI 15013/7/08-DS dated April 1st, 2008 written by your Secretary, Mr. K. Mohandas addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare?"
To this he received a response on 24.9.08 from Maj. Gen. Dr. P. N. Awasthi, Director General, DCI as follows:
2"Vide this office letter dated 18.9.2008 the PIO of the DCI has sent the information to you, a copy of which is enclosed for your ready reference.
Regarding your RTI application dated 9.9.2008, a separate reply will be sent to you as per provision of the RTI Act, 2005."
In the meantime, appellant had moved his second application in the form of a request on 28.8.08 before the MHFW as follows:
"1. What is the final action taken by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on the letter of Shri Mohandas, Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India, communication bearing No. 01-15013/07/08-DS dated 1.4.2008 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (copy enclosed)?
2. What is the policy of the Government of India (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) regarding medical professionals/ doctors holding degrees from foreign universities especially in context of the recent advertisement issued by All India Institute of Medical Sciences with the Concurrence of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, inviting applications from the Overseas Citizens of India for high level appointment to the post of Director in AIIMS (copy of Advertisement enclosed)?
3. Would it be a consistent stand for the Ministry of Health to appoint on overseas citizen of India as Director of AIIMS and at the same time decline/ delay another OCI's request to have a private practice as a dentist?
4. You have already received a letter No. dE-109-2008/A-3975 dated 20th August 2008. What are your comments in this regard since the Dental Council of India has further referred my RTI application to your good self? (Copy enclosed).
5. You have received another letter from the Cabinet Secretariat File No. F-12015/231/200-RTI dated 7th August, 2008. Please comment as to whether you are allowing OCI qualified Doctors to practice in India since Ministry of Home Affairs has already notified OCIs at par with NRIs vide Notification dated 11th April 2005 SO 542 E (c) Parity with Non Resident Indians in respect of all facilities available to them in economic, financial and educational fields except in matters relating to acquisition of agricultural and plantation 3 properties. (File No. 26011/2/2005-IC.I) (Copy enclosed). Please comment in detail on your stand regarding the rights of OCI medical, dental and nursing professionals practicing in India.
6. You have also received letters from various other Ministries as well as Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs dated 21st August, 2008 File No. 11016/51/2008-FS and 28th August 2008 for your comments on RTI application dated 5th August, 2008 (copy enclosed). Please comment in detail on your stand regarding the rights of OCI medical, dental and nursing professionals practicing in India.
7. Letter No. V-11016/11/05-ME-P-1 Ministry of Health and Family, Welfare dated 8th July 2007 addressed to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, signed by Under Secretary Shri T. J. S. Chawla S. No. (ii) States that with regard to framing of rules/ regulations by this Ministry, it is stated that the practice of OCIs (medical doctors, dentists and nurses) shall be regulated as per the provisions of respective Acts and the regulations notified there under by respective councils. There is no need to issue separate rules/ regulations for regulating the practice of medicine by OCIs in India" (copy enclosed). Why is there a delay in giving OCIs the benefit/ right to practice in India, when no further rules and regulations are required as mentioned above? Moreover, Ministry of Home Affairs has already notified OCIs at par with NRIs vide notification dated 11th April 2005 SO 542 E (c ) Parity with Non Resident Indians in respect of all facilities available to them in economic, financial and educational fields except in matters relating to acquisition of agricultural and plantation properties."
This was followed by his third application in the form of a request to the MHA on 9.9.08 as follows:
"1. What is the clear cut meaning of the phrase "parity with Non Resident Indians" as used in Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 11.4.2005?
(i) Please indicate some examples of parity falling under clause
(c) of the said Ministry notification dated 11.4.05? Please note that clause (c) would include something in addition to
(a) and (b) or other separately notified rights of Overseas Citizens of India."4
The application to the MHFW was responded to on 5.9.08 as follows:
"As per Indian Medical Council, Act 1956 only Indian citizens are allowed to practice modern systems of medicine in the country. A proposal is under consideration in the Ministry for allowing Overseas Citizens of India to practice modern system of medicine in the country.
The Govt. keeps sending delegation of experts to various countries for assessment of medical education system. The medical and dental qualifications are recognized in consultation with the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India respectively. The recognition of qualifications once granted is not for ever. It may be withdrawn at any time if the Government comes to the conclusion that the quality of education being imparted by the medical / dental institution is below standard."
The application to the MHA was transferred by that Ministry to MOIA on 23.9.08, which in turn replied to the MHA on 8.10.08 stating as below:
"the notification regarding benefits to OCI's was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. This Ministry do not have any records to indicate that MOIA was consulted before issuing the notification.
Moreover, the notification of benefits to registered OCI's under Allocation of Business was allocated to this Ministry vide Cabinet Secretariat's note No. Doc.CD-87/2006 dated 16.2.2006.
In view of above, it is not possible to give a reply to the RTI applicant on what meant by the phrase "parity with non Resident Indians". MHA is requested to give a reply to the applicant."
In the meantime in a letter of 20.10.08 the MHFW, Dental Education Centre also responded to applicant Shri Amit Sikka by informing him of their response of 15.9.08. On the other hand the Home Ministry gave its response on 22.10.08, as follows:
"In view of the aforesaid definition of 'information", the details sought by you regarding (i) meaning of the phrase "parity with Non Resident Indians" as used in the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 11.4.2005 and (ii) examples of parity falling under clause ( c) of the said Notification do not come under the purview of "Information" as defined in the RTIU Act, 2005. However, it is informed that the word "parity" as it appears in the said Notification would convey the same meaning as in common parlance."5
The appellant had in the meantime moved his first appeal on 22.10.08 before Shri Ashim Khurana, Jt. Secretary (F), MHA pleading as below:
"Am I to understand that the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs have collectively issued approximately 3 lac OCI Cards to people across the world without really understanding / defining the rights being given to these OCI's via Notification F. No. 26011/2/2005/IC.I dated 11.4.2005, or are both the Ministries simply trying to hide the true facts and thus evade responsibility."
Upon this Shri Ashim Khurana, Jt. Secy. (Foreigners' Divn) in his order of 17.11.08, while referring to the response sent on 22.10.08 by the CPIO had directed as follows:
"1. I endorse the position stated by CPIO vide his letter of even number dated 22.10.2008, wherein it has been informed that the word 'parity' as it appears in the said notification would convey the same meaning as is used in common parlance. In the given context, as a matter of illustration, your attention is invited to the meaning of the word 'parity' as contained in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, a copy of which his enclosed for ready reference. You may however, still exercise your discretion in referring to the meaning of the word 'parity' in any other dictionary of your choice. The meaning of the word 'parity' as contained in the Oxford Concise Dictionary could be interpreted as a status of equivalence with NRIs.
2. With regard to the second information, the rights to which persons registered as Overseas Citizens of India under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act shall be entitled to, as notified by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs vide Notification dated 5.1.2007, are as under;-
(1) Registered Overseas Citizens of India shall be treated at par with Non-Resident Indians in the matter of inter-country adoption of Indian children.
(2) Registered Overseas Citizens of India shall be treated at par with resident Indian nationals in the matter of tariffs in air fares in domestic sectors in India. (3) Registered Overseas Citizens of India shall be charged the same entry fee as domestic Indian visitors to visit national park and wild file sanctuaries in India.6
4. With reference to clause (c ) of the Notification of this Ministry dated 11.4.2005, wherein you have sought some examples of parity, it may be desirable if you refer to us the specific issue on which you are seeking an example so that an appropriate reply can be given specific to your query."
Consolidating all these cases, appellant Shri Sikka has moved a single second appeal before us, as follows:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present Second Appeal be entertained and the actions / decisions of the respondents by way of rejection and / or deemed rejection, be set aside, with a direction to the respondents to furnish the desired information on time bound basis."
The appeal was heard on 13.3.09. The following are present:
Appellant Mr. Amit Sikka Ms. Rita Sikka, assisting appellant Respondents Mr. Anuj Sharma, Director, MHA Mr. K. V. Abraham, Asstt. Secy., DCI Mr. M. L. Meena, Law Officer, DCI Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Dy. Secy., MOIA Mr. N. Balasubramanian, Dy. Secy.,MOIA Ms. Vanaja K. Thekkat, Under Secy., MOIA Mr. Shiv Kumar, S.O., DCI Mr. S. B. Mandal, U.S., Mr. K. V. S. Rao, Dy. Secy., MHFW.
We have received a letter of 2.3.09 from Jt. Secy. (F) Shri Ashim Khurana seeking exemption from personal appearance which has been allowed.
Shri. Balasubramanian, Dy. Secy. MOIA submitted letters written by Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs Shri Vayalar Ravi, Secretary Shri K. Mohandas and Jt. Secy. Shri D. N. Srivastava to Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, Minister for Health & Family Welfare, Shri Naresh Dayal, Secy., MHFW and Dr. Anil Kohli, President, DCI seeking the registration of overseas citizens of India on parity with NRIs. Shri K.V. Abraham, Asstt. Secy. , DCI submitted a copy of the letter dated 23.2.09 addressed by the DCI to the MHFW in consequence to which 7 the MOIA has issued a notification dated 5.1.09 under SO 36(E) granting Overseas Indians parity with NRIs in respect of the following :
parity with non resident Indian in respect of -
i) entry fee to be charged for visiting the national monuments, historical sites and museums in India.
ii) Pursuing the following professions in India, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts, namely :-
i) doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists
ii) Advocates
iii) Architects
iv) Chartered accountants.
b) to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other
tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts. 1 Ms. Rita Sikka assisting appellant Mr. Amit Sikka acknowledging that the notification has now been issued, protested that because of the long delays in issuing this notification and failure to supply information sought within the time limits mandated by the Act, the appellant has suffered loss of valuable time in which they could have earned livelihood through practice of medicines.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the parties and examined the records, we find that the principal grievance of appellant Shri Sikka stands addressed through the issue of the notification of 5.1.09. However, we observe a complete abdication of authority by the MOIA in servicing the request of overseas Indians which it is presumed is the principal objective to address which this public authority owes its existence. The matter has reached such a pass that the appellant Shri Sikka has been compelled to move an application with the MoH&FW seeking to know the action taken on recommendations made by no less than the Secretary, MoIA, chief Executive of that Ministry. Appellant Shri Sikka has undoubtedly been given 1 Emphasis added for reference to present appeal 8 the runaround and because of delay in issuing the notification the spouse of appellant has been put to financial loss as a result of being denied practice. Moreover Ms Sikka has evidently had to rely on her husband being an Indian citizen to move RTI requests, because the RTI Rules do not thus far clarify that holders of PIO registration be treated as Indian citizens. The matter of course is outside the purview of this Commission. However it requires to be brought to the notice of both Cabinet Secretary and Secretary DoPT. Ms. Sikka, on the other hand, is free to seek compensation in a Court of Law, as a result of the information which has now been obtained exposing the confused approach of three nodal offices, the MHA, MOIA and the DCI towards establishing what should have been an obvious measure based on legislation on the subject of citizenship.
We have also examined the question of delay in responding to the information sought by the concerned CPIOs and found that no single CPIO can be held liable for the delays but all are responsible in some measure because there has been ultimate delay in the applicant receiving the information that he has sought. Thus the information sought on 5.8.08 has only been received on 18.9.08 after circuiting between various Ministries. Similarly information sought on 9.9.08 has been responded to only on 20.10.08. This delay has occurred because of transfers and uncertainty as to which public authority was dealing with the subject, a responsibility that should have been taken by the MOIA.
Although there will therefore be no penalty, it is hereby required under sec. 19(8)(a) that MOIA will review its procedure for handling requests from overseas Indians in order that the facilities available to citizens under the RTI Act 2005, including MoIA's responsibilities as public authority under that Act, as a result of the rights enjoyed by OCIs under the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended to date, are ensured. A report of the action taken will be submitted to Shri PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar Central Information 9 Commission within thirty working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13.3.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13.3.2009 10