Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs National Security Guard on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NSGRD/C/2023/615774
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Security Guard
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2025
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 30.01.2023
PIO replied on : 10.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 11.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 23.02.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Present status of animals belongs to Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, Police, Military, Para Military Force, for their welfare, retirement benefits, transportation rules and regulations.
2. PFA Haryana through Naresh Kadyan, intervene SLP (C) No. 11686 of 2007, please confirm in writing. Five freedoms of animals, Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:
(i). freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition
(ii) freedom from fear and distress
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
Paintwise efforts, to establish, restore above said legal rights for animals, under the control of Force, describe their species and gender, because BSF allow male Camels only, discriminating gender of animals.
3. Court to move petition to restore their 5 freedoms, as stated above.
4. Court to move violation complaints, as Page 1 A). Army Act, 1950: Section 55: Injury to property. B). Air Force Act, 1950: Section 55: Injury to property. C). Border Security Force Act, 1968: Section 33: Injury to property. D). Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007: Section 36: Injury to property. E). Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992: Section 36: Injury to property.
F) And other related information."
The CPIO, National Security Guard vide letter dated 10.02.2023 replied as under:-
"Reason for Rejection :- Section 24."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 23.02.2023 stated as under:-
"Appeal is rejected under Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Santosh Pandit, Squadro Commander, NSG- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent stated that the by virtue of provision contained in Section- 24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Complainant, cannot be provided since the National Security Guard is an organization listed in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act 2005 and is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. He averred that the information sought by the Complainant does not fall under either of the two aforementioned categories.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 2 Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Page 3 Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)