Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Justice on 10 November, 2022
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/JUSTC/A/2020/680538
Naresh Kadyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. National Judicial Academy,
RTI Cell, Bhadbhada
Road, Suraj Nagar,
Bhopal-462044, Madhya 'Pradesh.
2.Department of Justice,
RTI Cell, Jaisalmer House,
26, Mansingh Road,
New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 07/11/2022
Date of Decision : 07/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 11/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/05/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 28/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2020 with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:
"A). Smt. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education, Scouts & Guides for Animals & Birds along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals endorsed me to explain that Performing Animals Rules 1973, might be replaced by Performing Animals Registration Rules 2001 but Resources Persons of National Judicial Academy Anand Grover, Advocate, presented during 25th and 26th March, 2017 in the WORKSHOP ON ANIMAL RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE FOR MAGISTRATEs, supply me complete details about Anand Grover teaching wrong facts along with TA1DA & Fee etc paid to him B). National Judicial Academy with many other legal Establishments as National or state legal services authority may select - nominate Resource Persons to share their expert opinion & knowledge, Experiences & to give training, Workshop, refresher courses etc in the field of Animal Rights & their Welfare including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 along with Rules & Notifications, like wise similar for the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 & Biological Diversity Act, 2002 along with others rules & regulations, hence supply me complete details, list with future schedules for above said subjects:
1. Resource Persons for animal rights & their welfare
2. Resource Persons for Wildlife
3. Resource Persons for Flora & fauna
4. Resource Persons for Biological Diversity Act, 2002 with Rules & Regulations.
5. Qualifications & procedure to be a Resource Persons for above said subjects
6. Eligibility for Resource Persons along with benefits & fee - TA & DA
7. List - details of Maneka Gandhi & Gauri Mulekhi participated as Resource Persons with National Judicial Academy, because their conflict of interest to appear before the many courts as petitioners."
The CPIO/Respondent no. 2 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 11.05.2020. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2020.
FAA's order dated 28.05.2020 held as under:-
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent no. 1: P. R. Singh, Law Associate & CPIO present through video- conference.
Respondent no. 2: Anant Kumar, U.S. & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Respondent no. 2 submitted that since the subject matter of information does not pertain to their; therefore, the RTI Application was transferred by them to Respondent no. 1 and other concerned CPIOs'.
The Respondent no. 1 invited attention of the bench towards their written submission filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -
"....A. The information sought by the applicant is not clear as to what information the applicant is trying to seek from the CPIO. The application states "supply me complete details about Anand Grover teaching wrong facts", which does not come under the term information under the RTI Act. Hence, no reply could be issued to the applicant.
B. [1-4] The National Judicial Academy (NJA) through judicial education programmes provides a platform for judges from all over India and at every level of the Justice Delivery system to come together for deliberations, discussions, debates on court processes & procedures and application of statutes to enhance the quality and responsiveness of Justice. Core areas of judicial education covered by the Academy are categorized as "core clusters" which are - Judging/Judicial Institutions; Court Process and Dispute Settlement; Public Law (Constitutional Law/Administrative 3 Law/Governance); Criminal Law; Civil, Commercial and Economic Law; Personal Law (Family Law, Gender, Child and the Law); Protection of Vulnerable Groups, Individual Rights and of Environment and Natural Resources; International Law; Law, Society and Development and other emerging areas like Information & Courtroom technology, cybercrimes, counter terrorism etc. The Academy implements training curriculum as approved by the National Judicial Academic Council (NJAC) for an academic year. The training programme for the academic year is proposed by the Director and Faculty members of the Academy which is approved after due consideration by the NJAC. The NJA and SJAs submits their draft annual academic calendars of their respective academies to the Council for finalization.
xxxxxxxxx The NJAC is the final approving authority of programmes to be organized at the NJA and SJA for an academic year. Since the year 2020 no programme on Animal Rights or allied area was proposed either before NJAC nor did NJA conduct any programme on the said subject. Henceforth, details pertaining to future programmes and their schedule including RPs is not available with the Academy. Therefore, no reply could be issued in this regard. B. [5-6] The Academy organizes conferences, seminars, workshops and orientation programs for judicial officers serving at different levels in the hierarchy of the Indian Court System and for presiding officers of the tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies. These academic and training programmes are organized every week through the year according to a scheduled calendar. The Trainers/ Resource persons may include eminent Hon'ble Judges subject and domain experts drawn from law enforcement agencies, industry, business, academia and several other domains who share knowledge and experience with prior approvals from the competent authority as per the need of specific programme. They have to be person of eminence in their field and as such no minimum qualification has been fixed.
B. [7] Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India, High Courts both serving and retired and/or experts from several disciplines are invited to guide the sessions irrespective of their appearance before various legal forum for their practical experience and knowledge on the subject in that area or field. Since the information requested by the applicant is not clear as to what details of Maneka Gandhi & Gauri Maulekhi the applicant is seeking, no specific reply can be furnished...."
Decision:4
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also the fact remains that it also contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
His attention is also 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."5
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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." (Emphasis Supplied) 6 Further, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarification provided by the CPIO during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the foregoing and also considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to buttress his case, the Commission finds no scope of further action in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIOs' is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
7"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIO/Respondent no. 1 herein is hereby directed to provide a copy of his latest written submission free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8