Central Information Commission
Chinta Ramakrishna vs Cbi on 7 December, 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/CBRUI/A/2020/130197
Chinta Ramakrishna .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
RTI Cell, Policy Division, 27 North
Block, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2021
Date of Decision : 06/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 16/03/2020
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/09/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.12.2019 seeking the following information:
1
"I, Chinta Ramakrishna, S/ o. Ramamurthy, want to state that, as per Delhi Police Act CBI is authorized to fill 50% of their requirement on deputation from various Departments like Intelligence Bureau RPF and banks etc., obviously to assist in offering their skills in investigation in this regards I request you to clarify on the following points.
1) Is such deputed official are treated as police officials during their stay in CBI?
2) Are they authorized to sign on the charge sheets of the CBI Department as per Law?"
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 16.03.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per the section 2(f) and section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA's order dated 07.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Partha Mukherjee, AIGP & CPIO (Policy Division) present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and at the behest of the Commission tendered further clarification regarding the issues raised by the Appellant in the RTI Application.
The Appellant stated his dissatisfaction and questioned the merits of the DSPE Act provisions.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has 2 sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act 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.........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) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3