Central Information Commission
Dr Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 22 September, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163430
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164353
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164351
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164345
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157866
Dr. Nutan Thakur, ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
The CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Police II Division, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
The CPIO,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Police Coordination Section,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
The CPIO,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
NIA Desk, CTCR Division,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
The CPIO,
Dy. Secy. (Services),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001
The CPIO,
IS-I Division, Ministry of Home Affairs,
MDC National Stadium, New Delhi - 110001
The CPIO,
IS-I Division, VIP Security,
Ministry of Home Affairs, MDC National
Stadium, New Delhi - 110001
Page 1 of 9
Date of Hearing : 21.09.2020
Date of Decision : 22.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO dated Complaint/Second
Nos. on dated Appeal Appeal dated
dated
163430 31.07.2018 23.08.2018 03.09.2018 01.10.2018 18.10.2018
164353 03.08.2018 05.09.2018 03.09.2018 06.10.2018 25.10.2018
164351 11.08.2018 05.09.2018 09.09.2018 Nil 25.10.2018
164345 03.08.2018 16.08.2018 03.09.2018 No Reply 25.10.2018
157866 23.06.2018 05.07.2018/ 29.07.2018 No Reply 20.09.2018
12.07.2018
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163430
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 31.07.2018 seeking information on 05 points as under:
1. How many investigations have so far been handed over to National Intelligence Agency (NIA) by the Government of India since the beginning of the formation of the agency.
2. Kindly provide its year-wise break up and brief reference/title of each of these cases.
3. How many of these NIA investigations have got completed as per MHA records.
4. Which NIA investigations still remain pending as per the MHA records.
5. In how many cases of NIA, as per the MHA records, there has been conviction so far by the Courts.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) The CPIO, NIA Desk, CTCR Division, MHA furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 23.08.2018 informing her on point no 1 that 220 cases were handed over to the NIA till date. With regard to points 2 to 5, it was stated that the information is available in the public domain which may be accessed at www.nia.gov.in/niacases Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 01.10.2018 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Page 2 of 9Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone. She claimed that contrary to the reply of the CPIO on points 2 to 5, no information is available on the website of the NIA.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Praveen Kumar, Director, CT-III through audio conference. Arguing that the Appellant's contention is false, he drew the attention of the Commission to the weblink of cases on the NIA's website wherein the year wise details of each case registered with NIA together with its present status was indicated. Thus, the Respondent stated that all complete and correct information is provided to the Appellant Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that point wise information as per available records is provided by the Respondent. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164353 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 03.08.2018 seeking information on 02 points as under:
1. Kindly provide copy of the documents of the Ministry of Home Affairs associated with the files related with the appointment of various Chairpersons of the National Commission of Human Rights, since 01/01/2010.
2. Kindly also provide copy of the documents of the Ministry of Home Affairs associated with the files related with the appointment of various members of the National Commission of Human Rights since 01/01/2010.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) The CPIO & D.S. (HR), MHA, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.09.2018 wherein it was inter alia stated that the information sought was voluminous, unspecific or excessive. In this context a reference was also made to Page 3 of 9 the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Madurai bench) in WP No 13874/ 2009 decided on 07.07.2014.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2018. The FAA vide order dated 06.10.2018 observed that the RTI application was responded to within the stipulated time period on 05.09.2018 and upheld the reply of PIO.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
A written submission has been received from the PIO and Dy Secretary (HR) vide letter dated 17.09.2020 wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the CPIO had no objection in providing any specific information sought by Appellant regarding appointment of any Chairperson or Member of NHRC and that seeking sweeping information for years together appears to be a blatant misuse of the RTI Act.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone. She stated that considering that the tenure of each Chairperson and Member of NHRC was 05 years, a maximum of 02 Chairpersons and 08 Members may have been appointed during the period for which information is sought in her RTI application. Hence, it is the claim of the Appellant that the information sought is not large and voluminous.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Pawan Kumar, DS- HR through audio conference. He reiterated the CPIO/ FAAs reply and stated that the information sought being large and voluminous is scattered across 10 files and consists of approximately 3500 pages, providing which would disproportionately divert their resources. Emphasising the volume of records sought, the Respondent claimed that it took 02 working days only to count the number of pages that would be required to be provided to the Appellant in order to facilitate the flow of information to her. The Respondent also apprehended that the records available with them may also contain the personal information of Third Parties which may be exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
On being queried, if they were willing to provide inspection of records to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time, the Respondent replied in the affirmative. Acknowledging the volume of records sought by her, the Appellant agreed to avail the opportunity of inspection offered by the Respondent.Page 4 of 9
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Respondent is instructed to allow inspection of records relating to the instant RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. Copies of documents, if any, desired by the Appellant during the inspection may be provided to her in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and after considering the nature of document sought. The fee for obtaining the documents shall be charged as per the provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164351 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2018 seeking the name of individuals who have presently been provided the following security covers by Central Government:
1. Z Plus category
2. Z category
3. Y plus category
4. Y category
5. X category The CPIO, MHA, IS-I Div., VIP Security Unit vide letter dated 05.09.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant inter alia stating that the name/details of protectees, documents related to provision of security, inputs received from Central Security Agencies etc. are exempted under Section 8(1) (g), 8(1) (i) and Chapter VI, Section 24(1) and Second Schedule, of the RTI Act-2005. However, in the said reply certain clarifications on providing categorised security (Z+, Z, Y+, Y and X) to individuals was provided in the response.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2018, The FAA vide order dated Nil observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, MHA, IS-Division/ VIP Security Division vide letter dated 14.09.2020 wherein the reply of the CPIO/ FAA was re-iterated.Page 5 of 9
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone. The Respondent is represented by Shri Rajendra Chaturvedi, Dir VS through audio conference. Both the parties admitted that identical issues were heard and adjudicated by the Commission in File No CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157113 decided on 03.09.2020.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, adjudication of the instant Second Appeal is barred by the principles of res judicata. No further direction is required to be passed in the present Appeal.
With the aforesaid observation, the Second Appeal stands disposed off.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/164345 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2018 seeking copies of the documents of the Ministry of Home Affairs associated with the files related with the appointment of various Commissioners of Police of Delhi Police, since 01/01/2010.
The CPIO/D.S. (Services), MHA vide letter dated 16.08.2018 furnished a reply to the Appellant informing her that the queries raised by her did not fall within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the Appellant was given the liberty to inspect the records on any working day after fixing an appointment with US (UTS-I) over phone.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2018, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.Page 6 of 9
A written submission has been received from the Respondent vide letter dated 18.09.2020 wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO it was mentioned that no record of the First Appeal being filed by the Appellant was available with them.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone. She stated that the CPIO took an incorrect plea that the information sought is not available. Moreover, the First Appeal filed by her is not decided, till date.
The Respondent is represented by Shri B.G. Krishnan (DG-Services) through audio conference. Referring to their written submission, the Respondent stated that no First Appeal was received by them in the instant matter. As regards the information sought, the Respondent stated that the information sought is voluminous and scattered and that the CPIO vide its reply dated 16.08.2018 had also offered inspection of records to the Appellant which was not availed off by her. On being queried by the Commission, if she was willing to avail inspection of records on a mutually convenient date and time, the Appellant replied in the affirmative.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Respondent is instructed to allow inspection of records relating to the instant RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. Copies of documents, if any, desired by the Appellant during the inspection may be provided to her in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and after considering the nature of document sought. The fee for obtaining the documents shall be charged as per the provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157866 Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2018 seeking the number of personnel and official vehicles to be officially allotted to each of the following category of IPS officers in the Ministry of Home Affairs and its various organizations including the Central Para Military Forces and other central police organizations, in the following three categories (a) in their office (b) for their personal assistance (c) for their household assistance-
1. Director General and equivalent
2. Additional Director General and equivalent
3. Inspector General and equivalent Page 7 of 9
4. Deputy Inspector General and equivalent
5. Commandant and equivalent
6. Deputy Commandant and equivalent
7. Assistant Commandant and equivalent The Dy Secy (Pers) and CPIO, Police- II Division vide letter dated 05.07.2018 transferred the RTI application to the Police-I Division, and CPIOs of CAPFs (CRPF/ BSF/ CISF/ ITBP/ SSB). Subsequently, the U.S. (IPS.I), Police Co- ordination Section vide letter dated 12.07.2018 informed the Appellant that allotment of personnel and vehicles to IPS officer in the Ministry does not come under the domain of Police-I Division. Hence, insofar as Police-1 Division is concerned, the requisite information may be treated as NIL.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2018, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone. She stated that no information is received by her on the queries raised in the RTI application.
The Respondent is represented by Shri S.K. Jha Dy Secretary (Admin), MHA; Shri V.K. Rajan, DS (Estabt), MHA; Shri Praveen Yadav, DS & HoD (Logistics), MHA; Shri Sandeep Khosla, Dy Dir Gen; ITBP and Shri S.C. Budakoti, DIG (Prov), BSF through audio conference. All the Respondents stated that the information sought is not available in a consolidated form with one Public Authority or its constituent department. The representatives of ITBP and BSF submitted that vide the CPIO replies dated 13.07.2018 and 16.07.2018 respectively they had informed the Appellant that their organisation was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the Act. Moreover, since the Appellant in her representation had not represented/ established any allegation of corruption or violation of human rights in her RTI application, the exception to Section 24 was also not attracted in the instant matter. Shri S.K. Jha, denied his involvement in the instant matter stating that he is only authorised to deal with Personnel matters of non-gazetted staff in MHA. While submitting that the queries essentially related to logistics related issues, Shri Jha submitted that Shri V.K. Rajan, DS (Estmt), MHA and Shri Praveen Yadav, DS & HoD (Logistics) were the concerned officers in the MHA.Page 8 of 9
In order to ascertain who is the actual custodian of information the Commission contacted Shri Rajan and Shri Yadav. Shri Rajan submitted that he is concerned with logistics/ vehicle allotment of Group A officers only. Shri Yadav submitted that he only deals with logistics in General Admin cadre and that as per his knowledge no personal vehicles are allotted to IPS officers and only pick and drop service is provided in lieu of transport allowance with approval of competent authority. Shri Yadav however submitted that the information pertaining to allotment of personnel to IPS officers ought to be held and available with Shri S.K. Jha who deals with personnel matters.
Having heard all the parties and on perusal of the available records, it is evident that multiple parties dealing with different aspects of the RTI application are involved in the instant matter. Moreover, the queries raised by the Appellant are vague and roving seeking details of personnel and official vehicles allotted to each of the categories of IPS officers mentioned in the RTI application in the Ministry of Home Affairs and its various subordinate organization including the Central Para Military Forces and other central police organizations. On being asked to refocus her queries to seek specific information about a particular cadre, the Appellant submitted that at this stage she desires the information of IPS officers, in the rank of Director General or equivalent rank posted at MHA.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as also the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission instructs Shri S.K. Jha Dy Secretary (Admin); Shri V.K. Rajan, DS (Estmt), MHA and Shri Praveen Yadav, DS & HoD (Logistics) to re-examine the RTI application and provide the information held and available with them with respect to the IPS officers in the rank of DG or equivalent posted at MHA to the Appellant. The above-mentioned direction should be complied with by the Respondent by 21.10.2020.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 9 of 9