Central Information Commission
Ravi Kumar Kalra vs District Session Judge on 17 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/120658
CIC/LOKNH/A/2018/137180
CIC/LOKNH/A/2018/137174
Shri Ravi Kumar Kalra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
With Sh. Kumarib K.
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Nodal Officer-RTI(Central),
O/o. the District & Sessions Judge,
Tis Hazari Courts
Through: Smt. Usha Arora/PIO
Sh. R.K.Mehra/FAA
Sh. Manoj Taneja/TA ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
PIO/O/o. the Medical Directorate, Lok Nayak
Hospital (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Dr. Amit Gupta/PIO
Date of Hearing : 17.12.2019
Date of Decision : 17.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
120658 18.07.2017 21.08.2017 22.09.2017 --
137180 21.02.208 24.02.2018 06.03.2018 25.04.2018
137174 20.03.2018 -- 23.04.2018 15.05.2018
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/120658
Appellant filed RTI application dated 18.07.2017 seeking information on seven
points pertaining to the filing of the zero FIR (no. 00/13) by a minor girl,
whereby she had leveled allegations of sexual assault:-
1. Whether the original copy of zero FIR filed by Kamla Market Police Station with
the MM Shri Sachin Sangwan Court was transferred to the Jodhpur Court or the
certified copy of the same was transferred or the photocopy of the same was
transferred to the Jodhpur Court.
2. Certified copy of complaint and of the Zero FIR as are available on record.
3. The Zero FIR was handed over on which date and time and to which official
person of the Court and to which Court in Jodhpur.
Page 1 of 4
4. Whether any official acknowledgement was obtained by the official of the MM
Shri Sachin Sangwan Court when he handed over the Zero FIR to the Jodhpur
Court. Provide the certified copy of the acknowledgement as is on record.
5. Provide the certified copy of the correspondence received from the Jodhpur Court
for the transfer of this Zero FIR and the reply of the Court mm Shri Sachin
Sagwan Court in response of that. And other related information.
PIO vide letter dated 21.08.2017 provided point wise information to the
Appellant.
PIO, RTI, Central, Tis Hazari Courts transferred the copy of RTI application to
PIO, Delhi Police on (date illegible).
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.09.2017.Feeling
aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the
Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing. Respondent has filed a submission dated 10.12.2019. Appellant is a follower of Asaram Bapu and claims that he has been wrongly convicted in the case of sexual assault. Appellant requires the information to investigate the falsehood behind it and establish Asaram Bapu's innocence. Respondent states that on 20.08.2013 the zero FIR was registered and since the offence includes rape allegations, details thereof cannot be provided to the appellant to protect the identity of the victim. The Respondent submits that apart from the information being exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, the Section 228A of the IPC also clearly forbids disclosure of such information.
Decision:
After hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission is convinced that no larger public interest is involved in dissemination of the information in this case. On the contrary, the present RTI application appears to stem from personal interest rather than any public interest. The disclosure of information in this case is likely to infringe upon the privacy and security of third person/s, who is the victim in a rape case. Accordingly, even the Respondent has denied information citing the relevant provisions of law, as noted above. Therefore, the denial of information by the Respondent in terms of the provisions of Section 8 (1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act is hereby, upheld by the Commission.
Commission finds it appropriate to make an observation that even if the Appellant is not present for the FAA hearing, it is imperative for the FAA to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The argument that the First Appeal was not adjudicated because Appellant was not present is not maintainable. Therefore, a warning is hereby issued to the Respondent public authority to exercise due diligence and application of mind while handling RTI matters, in order to prevent violation of the RTI Act.
The appeal stands disposed off as such.Page 2 of 4
CIC/LOKNH/A/2018/137180 Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.02.2018 seeking information on three points:-
1. The minor girl was examined by a Doctor who prepared a MLC No. 170767 as recorded in Medico Legal Injury Register 086139. Provide certified copy of the above mentioned MLC number as recorded in form no. 120 of Hospital.
2. The Doctor referred the minor girl to a Gynecologist for further examination. The lady Doctor also prepared a MLC NO. 170767 and Gynecologist MLC No. 8928 as recorded in Medical Legal Injury Register 19134. Provide certified copy of the above mentioned MLC as recorded in form No. 120 of Hospital.
3. The particulars of injury, if any, found on the minor girl may be disclosed, other information may or may not be give as per your own judgment.
SPIO, Lok Nayak Hospital vide letter dated 24.02.2018 denied information on points No. 1 & 2 under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.03.2018. FAA vide order dated 25.04.2018 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/LOKNH/A/2018/137174 Appellant filed RTI application dated 20.03.2018 seeking information on two points:-
1. The minor girl was examined by a Doctor who prepared a MLC No. 170767 as recorded in Medico Legal Injury Register 086139 in form no. 120. In the light of this MLC, Provide the following questions regarding particulars of injuries or symptoms, in yes or no and give further details if any.
a) Request for medical examination under DD No. 36A dated 19.8.13.
b) O/E Conscious & oriented. BP 114/72 Hg, PR-74/m.
c) Chest, CVS, CNS, PIA} NAD
d) No external fresh injury on the body at the time of examination.
e) Examination done in presence of WASI (Name) and patient mother.
f) Adv. Refer to Gyna Exm for further evaluation. Etc
2. The Doctor referred the minor girl to a Gynecologist for further examination. The lady Doctor also prepared a MLC NO. 170767 and Gynecologist MLC No. 8928 as recorded in Medical Legal Injury Register 79134 in form No. 120.In the light of this MLC, Provide the following questions regarding particulars of injuries or symptoms, in yes or no and give further details if any.
a) 17yrs
b) Unmarried
c) m/o sexual assault
d) No m/o penetration/physical assault/LOC
e) O/E Conscious P1-/1-O-
3. PR-88/min, BP-11/70 hg. Etc Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.04.2018.
Page 3 of 4FAA vide order dated 15.05.2018 noted that during the hearing SPIO has denied the information invoking the Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. FAA refers to the CIC decision vide No. CIC/SNGMH/A/2017/180099 dated 15.05.2018 wherein the information was also denied under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, FAA denied the information. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal.
Respondent, while relying on the FAO, submits that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Commission concurs with the reasoning adopted by the FAA. The information sought by the Appellant clearly falls within the ambit of Section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant has failed to establish his locus standi in this case or of any larger public interest involved. Therefore, no further adjudication seems essential in this case. The decision of the FAO is hereby upheld by the Commission.
In case no. CIC/LOKNH/A/2018/137174, Commission notes that no reply in response to the RTI application was provided to the Appellant. A warning is hereby, issued to the Respondent PIOs to be more cautious and careful in future while handling RTI applications so as to avoid violation of the RTI Act.
The appeal stands disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 4 of 4