Central Information Commission
Saurav Das vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 23 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOHFW/A/2021/622522
Shri Saurav Das ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Health & Family Welfare ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.08.2021, 19.06.2024
Date of Decision : 16.08.2021, 18.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.04.2021
PIO replied on : 23.04.2021
First Appeal filed on : 22.04.2021
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.06.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. The list of exact dates on which the NTAGI has met till date to discuss on matters relating to the Coronavirus.
2. The minutes of ALL the meetings convened on the coronavirus situation and vaccination till date. All information, details of members, their designations, EACH AND EVERY MEMBERS' inputs be provided as well.
3. The agenda of each of the meetings be furnished as well.
4. Furnish the certified true copies of all the inputs, advise provided to the NEGVAC and the Ministry of Health till date on the Coronavirus and vaccination process.
5. Furnish whether the use of Facial Recognition Technology with vaccination, Aadhaar linking with Vaccination and National Digital Health ID with Vaccination was discussed in the meetings of NTAGI. If so, furnish the minutes of such meetings, file notings, email communications, any form of communication, memos, etc. in relation to the above referred matters.
6. Furnish all the details, including minutes of the meetings, internal communications, memos, file notings in relation to the task of providing digital infrastructure for Coronavirus vaccination and procurement. Complete details be provided."
The CPIO vide letter dated 23.04.2021 transferred the RTI application to the RTI cell.
Page 1 of 8Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.04.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A detailed self explanatory written submission dated 08.07.2021 marked to the Appellant, has been received from CPIO wherein among other factual details, the Respondent stated as under:
2. i. As per available records, Sh. Saurav Das filed an online RTI application vide Registration No. MOHFW/R/E/21/01523 dated 16.04.2021 to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW). (Annexure-2) ii. The Nodal Officer of MoHFW forwarded aforesaid RTI application to the undersigned CPIO on 16.04.2021.
iii. As the queries rose/information sought therein related to National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) was not dealt and not available with the undersigned CPIO. Therefore, aforesaid RTI application was transferred online through RTI portal to CPIO & Under Secretary (Immunization), MoHFW by the undersigned on 20.04.2021 and disposed of aforesaid RTI application on 23.04.2021 mentioning such transfer. However, it was inadvertently typed forwarded by RTI Cell, MoHFW. (Annexure-3) iv. As per RTI Act, one CPIO can transfer RTI application to the other closely related CPIO.
v. The applicant has mentioned at Para 4(b) in his second appeal dated 24.04.2021, that first appeal was filed on 22.04.2021. However, no registration number is mentioned and no information is there that to whom first appeal was made. However, as such first appeal (searched by name and date) has not been found with online Portal of First Appeal Authority in the case of undersigned CPIO. (Annexure-4)
3. It is observed that 19 RTI applications of Sh. Saurav Das have been received online in this office and in the every RTI applications being received from the month of April 2021, the applicant has being mentioned "RTI has been filed under the threat to life and Liberty clause u/s 7(l) of the RTI Act and the same is required to be answered within 48 hours". It is the applicant's self declaration in almost every RTI application.
However, as far as this CPIO i.e. Under Secretary, COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell (CVAC) is concerned, it is kind to inform that since the crux of the information /guidelines/ Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) etc. has being communicated to the States/ UTs and also explained by the experts on various media forums (both print and electronic), therefore, the issue of imminent impact on life and liberty of Indian citizen does not arise.
It is kind to bring into the notice of Hon'ble CIC that COVID-19 vaccination related information/guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure (SoP)/Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)/data/statistics etc. is proactively disclosed by the Ministry of Page 2 of 8 Health & Family Welfare on the various Platforms for the General Public. (For kind information and ready reference fwebsite's link is enclosed herewith). (Annexure-5) The Respondent from Immunization Section has also sent a reply dated 08.07.2021, which refers to reply dated 13.05.2021 already sent to the Appellant and stated as under:
With regard to information on point No.1 to 3 which pertain to Immunization Section, the Ministry's website link has been shared which covers all important meetings on NTAGI held, their minutes of meeting with members & agenda of the meeting. The information on remaining Point Nos. 4 to 6 does not pertain to Immunization Section and, accordingly, transferred the RTI application to concerned-CPIO i.e. CPIO of CVAC under RTI Act,2005 for providing the information directly to the applicant. Hence, the information available with the CPIO (undersigned) had already been provided vide letter No. Z.33013/27/2021-IMM dated 13.05.2021 (copy enclosed). The Applicant has stated that he filed 1st RTI Appeal dated 22nd April,2021 which was not received by the First Appellate Authority/or Immunization Section and, hence, not replied.
The reply dated 13.05.2021 attached with the above reply sent by the Immunization Section stating that information pertaining to query numbers 1-3 about list of exact dates on which the NTAGI met, minutes of ALL meetings and agenda of the meetings is available online, mentioning the relevant website and link thereto. The queries number 4, 5 and 6 were answered by the Respondent stating: the information does not pertain to Immunization Section. However, a copy of your RTI application is hereby transferred to Covid Vaccine Administrative Cell (CVAC) of [his Ministry for providing information, if any, available to them directly to the applicant.
A screenshot of a webpage of the Respondent public authority has been placed on record which reveals the Operational Guidelines by the Immunization division, which discloses various information including the minutes of meeting of NTAGI held in 2013
- 2018, 2019-2021. A minutes of meeting of NTAGI held on 28.05.2021 is also attached herewith.
The Appellant has filed an undated common rejoinder to the CPIO's detailed submissions among which one of the relevant contentions was about exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act not being supported by any justification. The PIO's contention about not being in the channel of submission of decision making process regarding COVID-19 Vaccine/vaccination has been countered by the Appellant stating that though the concerned official may not have the custody of the file, however, outright denial of information on that ground is illegal and unacceptable, since Section 5(4) of the RTI Act was not applied nor any effort made to seek assistance of the relevant official to provide information. The Appellant has further contended that though the PIO has stated that information is available in public domain, he has not found the desired information on any of the websites. He demanded the information claiming that larger public interest demands disclosure of information. The Appellant has averred in his submissions that he has filed the RTI application under 'life and liberty' provision of the RTI Act whereas the PIO has not provided the information/response on whether, in their opinion, the same is indeed a Page 3 of 8 matter of life and liberty or not. It is his contention that the PIO's act of not sending any response within the mandated time of 48 hours is akin to denial of information.
After perusing the above documents and considering the averments of the parties, the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant was heard at length by the erstwhile Chief Information Commissioner on 09.08.2021 and an order dated 16.08.2021 was passed.
Not satisfied with the decision by the Commission, the Appellant approached the Madras High Court and filed 4 Writ Petitions W.P. Nos. 5369, 5372, 5374, 5377 and 5378 of 2022. The Madras High Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 held that the matter should be decided afresh after hearing all parties concerned following the prescribed procedure and pass reasoned orders dealing with the contentions raised by them on merits and in accordance with law.
Hence the instant hearing.
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar - US was present during hearing.
The Appellant present during hearing contended that information sought by him had been denied while the Commission had on earlier occasion vide order dated 16.08.2021 decided the matter holding that information had been provided by the Respondent without any pointed discussion or any material proof produced in that regard. He referred to the aforementioned decision dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Madras High Court seeking that the matter be decided afresh uninfluenced and uninhibited by the earlier order. He reiterated the arguments referred by him in the common rejoinder mentioned hereinabove.
The Respondent - US, Covid 19 Vaccine Administration Cell has submitted a written submission dated 14.06.2024 which is a reiteration of the earlier written submission dated 08.07.2021 mentioned hereinabove. Respondent present during hearing reiterated that response in terms of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Appellant in this case, on the basis of available records as has already been submitted in the aforementioned documents.
Decision:
In view of the observation of the High Court, the instant case is decided afresh, without referring to the earlier decision dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Commission. The primary issues emerging in this matter are dealt as under:
Whether information is available in public domain Before deciding the merits of the case, it is important to note that information sought in this case relates to the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI), which is the highest advisory body on immunization in the country which consists of independent experts who provide recommendations on vaccines after reviewing data on disease burden, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of vaccines. The minutes of meeting dated 28.05.2021 annexed with this appeal reveals that the Page 4 of 8 proceedings discussed the following aspect: Further it was shared that all members and invited participants must respect the confidentiality agreement. Recently, it has been noticed that information on NTAGI-STSC meeting deliberations were circulating in the print and electronic media. As per the NTAGI code of practice confidentiality on meeting proceeding must be ensured by all participants. Proceedings of the NTAGI and its STSC meetings are confidential and no member/invited attendees who is not authorized by the NTAGI should speak on its behalf, shall communicate externally about the discussions, decisions and opinions expressed by the NTAGI or STSC, or by individual members during the course of this meeting, on a public or private forum. A list of the participants of the meetings attached with the minutes of the meeting reveal the names and designations of the entire team of 48 participants.
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the Respondent has submitted written submission dated 08.07.2021 containing five annexures. Copy of the entire set of the written submission has been sent to the Appellant, which includes the following:
i) Annexure 5 providing vaccination related information including guidelines/Standard Operating Procedure (SoP)/Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)/data/statistics etc. proactively disclosed by the MoHFW on various platforms for general awareness.
Moreover, the reply dated 13.05.2021 sent by the Immunization Section provided information pertaining to query numbers 1-3 about list of exact dates on which the NTAGI met, minutes of ALL meetings and agenda of the meetings is available online, mentioning the relevant website and link thereto.
Perusal of the aforesaid documents reveals that some information which answers the queries raised by the Appellant has been provided to him vide the written submission dated 08.07.2021 as annexures thereto or vide reply sent by the Immunization Section furnishing the relevant weblink, informing him that required information is either available in the public domain/platforms/websites including on the website of the Respondent public authority. However, it is noted that information about NTAGI as sought by the Appellant spans over a lot of issues and is not readily available. Hence, he is dissatisfied with the replies sent by the Respondent, so far and has thus claimed that he has been unable to obtain any information. This issue needs to be addressed.
Whether life and liberty clause is applicable in this case It is also noted from the averments put forth by the Applicant is that he has consistently contended that the Respondent has failed to answer his queries within 48 hours, though he had pleaded that the RTI applications raise queries affecting "life and liberty" of the public at large. The question of applicability of this clause has been adjudicated many times by the Commission. The most recent is the decision dated 29.07.2021 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Commission while deciding the Appeal number CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/625997 filed by the same Applicant, wherein after a detailed analysis of this subject, the Commission had held as under:
"..the bench came to the conclusion that the Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving 'life or liberty of a person' so that it would be used only Page 5 of 8 when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved. The appellant referring the matter as being related to public at large, and not 'a person' as specified in Sec. 7(1) proviso and in the interest of preventing the damage caused by pandemic is not sufficient to invoke this particular clause of 48 hours reply timeline, when apparently, the Appellant has failed to substantiate as to how information sought in the instant RTI Application has a bearing on his life and liberty or of any other person. Further, he also failed to quote any particular instance in which any individual related to him was affected due to non disclosure of the information. Therefore, the life and liberty of whom the appellant is pleading for is non-existent. However, undoubtedly it is a matter of great public interest. This bench is taking full cognizance of the plea that the information sought relates to public interest as the same is related to the COVID 19 pandemic vis-a-vis .. in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic. The matter itself is unprecedented and therefore, the appellant's plea that disclosure of information would have helped in holding discussions with Government is far stretched. To comment on the fact that as to whether there were enough steps taken by the authority or not in ensuring supply of medical oxygen is outside the jurisdiction of this bench."
Emphasis supplied This Bench upholds the view of the co-ordinate bench and is of the considered opinion that no review is required of this aspect, which already stands decided by a reasoned speaking order. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the period when the RTI application was filed, the public authorities were already struggling and with sheer dedication, good governance and immense hardwork emerged successful in the monumental task of saving the lives of millions in the face of such an unprecedented pandemic, thereby discharging the most important national duty at that point of time. Undoubtedly, lot of lives were also lost, but that discussion cannot form a part of this case which deals only with dissemination of information, which could not have saved lives as such. Perhaps the essence of 'life and liberty' as stated in this Act assumed a whole new and more grave meaning in prioritizing facilitating emergency and preventive medical care over disclosing information at the relevant point of time and thus as rightly held in the decision by the co ordinate Bench, though the queries related to public interest, it did not fulfill the criteria of being related to life and liberty of any person.
Whether Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is applicable Now dealing with the annexure attached with the written submission dated 08.07.2021, filed by the Respondent, denying information invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds it important to visit the exact provision of law, which is as under:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
It is noted that the Respondent has not explained or justified the denial of information and how the above clause of Section 8(1)(a) is attracted in this case. Thus Page 6 of 8 the Respondent's reply denying access to some of the information without justifying how disclosure of such information could have any detrimental impact on the sovereignty and integrity of the country or compromise national security, or adversely impact strategic, scientific or economic interests of the country or international relations of the country or lead to incitement of an offence, as envisaged under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is not found legally untenable as such. Hence the denial of information merely citing the provision of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is not acceptable and the Respondent is hereby directed to submit a suitable explanation, before the Commission, justifying denial of information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, for denying the rest of the information.
In the event that information related to NTAGI is not available directly with the PIO, provisions of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act may be exercised by the PIO in seeking necessary assistance from the relevant officials to provide the information desired by the information seeker.
Conclusion:
After careful perusal and analysis of the various facts emerging in this case, the Commission notes that the first three queries have been duly answered by the reply dated 13.05.2021 sent by the Immunization Section of the MoHFW furnishing the list of exact dates on which the meetings took place, minutes of the meetings and agenda of the meetings stating that the same are available online, mentioning the relevant website and link thereto. The annexures attached with the written submission dated 08.07.2021 submitted by the CPIO, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Cell addresses, copy whereof had been sent to the Appellant also discloses substantial amount of information including creation and composition of the Committee, SoPs, guidelines etc. as discussed in details, point by point hereinabove. Despite the fact that all of the abovementioned information has been made available to the Appellant, he is not only dissatisfied with the same but has nowhere clearly stated in his lengthy arguments, which specific information has been denied to him.
Be that as it may, in view of the aforementioned analysis of the facts of the case, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO/Under Secretary, MoHFW - Shri Rajesh Kumar present for the hearing to furnish a revised point wise reply addressing the queries raised by the Appellant, including information if any, held with another Division of the public authority, upon exercising provisions of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. In the event any of the query has already been addressed/answered before, the Respondent shall give appropriate reference thereof or the accurate weblink in the revised reply. The CPIO must ensure that provisions of the RTI Act are strictly adhered to in furnishing the revised reply so that information which is expressly barred from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act is severed invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. Denial of information on any point vide any of the provisions of the RTI Act must be duly justified by the PIO.
The CPIO must comply with the above directions within a month of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report within one week thereafter.
Page 7 of 8The Commission also deems this a fit case to strongly recommend the Respondent- PIO to take necessary steps for suo motu disclosure of maximum information on their website, in compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act in order to promote transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authority. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. Accordingly the Respondent public authority is advised to place the maximum information related to minutes of the meeting/circulars/policy decisions/orders issued by their department on their official website as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI in the larger public interest. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Section 8 and 9 RTI Act and redact any information which falls under any of the exemption clauses by applying provisions under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to improve upon following provision(s) of suo-motu disclosure in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section(1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005:
(i) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof.
(ii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councilscommittees and other bodies are open to the public, or minutes of such meetings are accessible for public.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)