Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sahib Ram Bhaadu vs Election Commission Of India on 7 May, 2021

                                 केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECOMM/A/2019/109117

Shri Sahib Ram Bhadu                                            ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Election Commission of India                          ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Madhu Sudan - Secretary

Date of Hearing                         :    06.05.2021
Date of Decision                        :    07.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner          :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                 :   08.11.2018
PIO replied on                           :   28.11.2018
First Appeal filed on                    :   26.12.2018
First Appellate Order on                 :   04.01.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on          :   26.02.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2019 seeking information on whether EVM is a third party between vote and voter.

The CPIO vide letter dated 28.11.2018 replied to the Appellant stating that information sought is not available in material form as mentioned under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The PIO clarified that Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trial is an independent system attached with the Electronic Voting Machines that allows voters to verify that their voters are cast as intended. When a vote is cast, a slip is printed on the VVPAT printer containing the serial number, name and symbol of the candidate and remains exposed through a transparent window for 7 seconds. Thereafter, the printed slip automatically goes out and falls in sealed drop box of the VVPAT.

Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed first Appeal dated 26.12.2018.

The FAA vide order dated 04.01.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Not satisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Communication dated 29.04.2021 has been received from Sh. T C Kom, Secretary furnishing the contacts of Sh. Madhu Sudan Gupta, the concerned CPIO.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and both reiterate their respective contentions.

Decision:

Perusal of records reveal that the Respondent has replied, whereby information defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant. Respondent is not obliged to answer the RTI query with his/her own personal opinion or interpretation. This legal position has been clearly elucidated in the decision pronounced by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information by decision dated 3 April, 2008, in the following words:

" .. Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents,memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,reports, 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;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act deals with information which already exists on record, not the Res[ondent's personal opinion/interpretation/justification etc. Hence, no further adjudication is deemed necessary in this case.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 2 of 2