Central Information Commission
Chitresh Kumar vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 20 May, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/JNUND/A/2019/151068
Chitresh Kumar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Registrar (Legal Cell)
Jawaharlal Nehru University, RTI
Cell, Room No. 133, Admn.Block,
New Delhi - 110067. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/05/2021
Date of Decision : 20/05/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 03/09/2019
First appeal filed on : 12/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 13/09/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/10/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2019 seeking information as follows:-
1. " कसके साथ miscommunication कै से miscommunication? Miscommunication के कारण या थे ?और इसके िलए िज मेदार कौन थे ?
2. Misunderstanding कसके ारा ई ? कसके साथ ई ? य ई ? इसके िलए िज मेदार कौन थे ?
3. आरोप- यारोप कनके - कनके साथ ई ? य ई ? इसके िलए िज मेदार कौन कौन थे?
4. Report बनाने के आधार या थे #रपोट% के िलए कन- कन सबूत का योग कया गया कृ पया सिव+तार उ-लेख करने क/ कृ पा कर0 |"
The CPIO provided a point wise reply to the appellant on 03.09.2019. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2019. FAA's letter dated 13.09.2019 forwarded his appeal to Dean of Students for providing the information/reply to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Despite repeated calls made to his contact no. as indicated in the Second Appeal, but it was not reachable) Respondent: Represented by Dr. Sajjan Singh, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, IHA along with Dr. Asheesh Kumar,Senior Warden & Faculty Member, Vakil Ahmad, Security Inspector.
At the outset, Dr. Asheesh Kumar narrating the factual background submitted that the Appellant is a student of 'Centre for Social Medicine and Community Health' and joined JNU in 2018 and was allotted Sutlej Hostel, JNU. He added that the Appellant initially filed a complaint addressed to the Dean of Students, JNU with a copy to Senior Warden against 21 students alleging that he was being victimized and harassed by them on caste, creed and colour. He further 2 submitted that however, looking into the gravity of the allegation, a Committee was set up comprising of warden and other higher authorities of JNU to investigate in to the matter . They conducted the enquiry and submitted the reports on 11.03.2019 & 05.07.2019 with the findings that the Appellant has failed to prove the accusations and no charges were proved against the said 21 students. He further submitted that a copy of the said enquiry report was also shared with the Appellant which itself is self-explanatory and addresses the issues flagged in his RTI application. He further added that taking an empathetic view , the Committee , in fact, had recommended that the Appellant be counseled and shifted to the alternate hostel.
Dr. Sajjan Singh submitted that protocols of Sutlej Hostel are governed by the Rules and policies framed by IHA (Inter- Hostel Accommodation), JNU . He further added that Appellant is an habitual RTI applicant and has perhaps some personality issues which provokes him to file numerous complaints without any substance. However, all his complaints/ RTI applications were properly addressed and responded and in fact, in one of the cases, even a committee was constituted to investigate into the issues raised by the Appellant and the outcome of the enquiry report was shared with the Appellant.
Rep. of CPIO submitted that timely response to the RTI Application was given and it was also informed to the Appellant that the queries raised by him in the RTI Application are not covered under the category of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard, the Commission deems it fit to decide the case based on merits after hearing submissions of the Respondent.
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant are rather speculative and are about seeking clarification which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 3 Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.
This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided adequate reply and clarifications during the hearing as per the RTI Act, thus, leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन)
हािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआय
ना ु त))
4
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
5