Central Information Commission
N Anbarasan vs Department Of Information Technology on 19 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC/01352
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC
In the matter of:
N. Anbarasan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Scientist 'F'
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 13/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 01/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 13/08/2019 Date of Decision : 19/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Scientist F, MEITY and CPIO, Shri S.K Srivastava, Scientist G, MEITY and FAA Information Sought:
The appellant has sought certified copies of the following information:
1. Information pertaining to the approval of design of CD inlay card and CD cover of "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during INFITT conference held during June 2010.
2. Press Release issued on release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD and through ILDC website during the Tamil Internet Conference held during June 2010.1
3. Information pertaining (approvals) to uploading of contents of "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during INFITT conference held during June 2010.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. In his second appeal he had submitted that the CPIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, vide his letter dated 06.12.2017 had intimated that "On the above subject the inputs of the TDIL Programme of Human Centered Computing Division are being collated it may take some time please bear with us". He further submitted that the CPIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, had provided uncertified copy of incomplete information vide letter dated NIL. In response to his letter to send certified copies of information as requested in the RTI application, the CPIO sent certified copy of the same incomplete information sent earlier. As the letter was not dated, he faced difficulties in counting 30 days for computing the time limit to file the First Appeal within the prescribed time limit. He requested the Commission to advise the CPIO to always mention the date of the letter while providing information or sending intimation.
He further submitted that in point no. 1 of the RTI application, where he had requested for information, the CPIO intimated that "the query is non-specific"
and provided a photocopy of CD cover of "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during JNFITT conference held during June 2010. File note of file dated
02.06.2010 in para 4 states that "The CD inlay card & sticker graphics is placed at flag "D". The appellant had requested the information pertaining to the approval of this CD inlay card and CD cover (printed on CD) of "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during INFITT conference held during June 2010. As the information provided by the CPIO is not the information pertaining to approval of CD inlay card and CD cover as requested by the appellant, the information provided by the CPIO is misleading. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information.
2File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC In respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application, the CPIO has intimated that "No such press release is available on record". The information pertaining to release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD available in the internet suggests that some information was shared with the media about the release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information.
In respect of point no. 3 of the RTI application, the CPIO has intimated that "the query is not complete, hence the relevant document (if available on record) could not be searched". As the contents of the "Tamil Software Tools"
CD is available on the TDIL website, the appellant had requested for the information pertaining to the approvals before uploading the contents of "Tamil Software Tools" CD. The appellant requests the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information.
The information pertaining to release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD available in the internet suggests that there was a formal release of "Tamil Software Tools"
CD during INFITT conference/ World Classical Tamil Conference. Hence, he requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information for item no. 4 of the RTI application.
In respect of point no. 6 of the RTI application he submitted that the CPIO has intimated the "No such information/document available on record". The appellant had referred to the note dated 18.06.2010 prepared by Shri N. Ravi Shankar, Joint Secretary while requesting certified copy of "status note". At the bottom of the note Shri Vijay Kumar had stated that " The status note is placed opposite". Now the intimation of the CPIO proves that the record has been tampered or partially destroyed. Such destruction of documents requires filing of complaint with police and filing of FIR. He requested the Commission to take action to file a police complaint. In the absence of any such action, he would be compelled to initiate appropriate legal action.
In respect of point no. 7 of the RTI application, the CPIO has intimated that "No such information/ document available on record". The information pertaining to presentation made by Smt. Swaran Lata during release of "Tamil software 3 tools" CD during INFITT conference/ World Classical Tamil conference available in the internet suggests that Smt. Swarn Lata had made some presentation. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information.
In respect of point no. 8 of the RTI application, he submitted that the CPIO has intimated that "No such information/ document available on record". He had referred to the note dated 18.06.2010 prepared by Shri N. Ravi Shankar, Joint Secretary while requesting certified copy of "status note". This note states that "MCIT had seen and released the CD at Coimbatore". This suggests that the Minister for "Ministry of Communication and Information Technology" might have made some speech. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct information.
During the hearing, he pointed out that he is now saAsfied with the reply provided in respect of points no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application.
Shri Vijay Kumar, the CPIO contended that the appellant has filed a total of 11 RTI applications to the Ministry asking for information on 76 points relating to the similar subject matter. He further submitted that the appellant has been requesting for certified copies of various software development projects like project proposal, approval of Hon'ble MCIT/ Secretary/ concurrence of IFD/Administrative Approval Letter/Sanction Letter/Terms and conditions/PRSG details/Technical and Financial statements/Utilisation certificates/Technical progress Reports/ etc since 2006. Accordingly, the appellant has been receiving information since 2006. The details were submitted as follows:
Slno RTI request and date Information given
I Requested copy of all the files, Ref No 2001 Invited for physical
(Admin)/NRTIA-19(4), 25.04.2006 examinations of the files
and list of files shared.
II One request forwarded by CDAC. Ref No. One page
2001 (Admin)/NRTIA-20(12), 20.07.2011
III Three requests forwarded by CDAC. Ref No Six pages 2001 (Admin)/NRTIA-20(14), 19.12.2011 4 IV Two requests forwarded by CDAC. Ref No Seven pages 2001 (Admin)/NRTIA-20(17), 19.03.2012 V A bunch of eight letters containing 57 Two hundred fifty pages requests. Ref No 2001 (Admin)/NRTIA-19(6)-
19(13), 25.11.2015 VI A bunch of eleven letters containing 76 Seventy eight pages requests. Ref No 2001 (Admin)/NRTIA-19(14)-
19(24), 18.11.2017, 29.11.2017 He further apprised the Commission about the background of the case, due to which information is not given. He submitted that as per Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 the requested documents pertain to advanced technology projects and are intellectual property of premiere R & D institution Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) and by providing this information, these may disclose the technical and financial information of commercial confidence belonging to CDAC to the appellant M/s Applesoft and may harm the competitive position of CDAC as CDAC and M/s Applesoft both are engaged in language software development and are competitors.
He further relied on earlier judgments of the Commission. He further submitted that the appellant has filed an RTI appeal against the Ministry on the same subject which was heard on 17.07.2013 in the CIC. The matter was closed vide file no. CIC/BS/A/2012/000871/LS on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as the matter sought contains information of commercial confidence pertaining to CDAC.
Similarly, an appeal filed by the appellant against IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur seeking details about technologies & products developed, licensed, transferred, norms or guidelines to incubate companies, laboratories, project proposal, approval of Secretary/ concurrence of IFD/ Sanction letter/ Terms and conditions/ PRSG details/ Grant in Aid or funds received from national or International funding agencies/research and development work carried out in the area of Indian Languages besides other information etc was also dismissed vide file no. CIC/OK/A/2007/01000 & 01082 dated 20.12.2007 on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as Appellant ran a company for software development.
5File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC Further in an appeal filed by the appellant against NIC seeking information relating to files documents and records relating to development of websites or web based applications from various departments of Karnataka and details regarding funds etc was dismissed vide file no 24/ICPB/2006 dated 05.06.2006 on the basis of RTI Act 2005 Sec 8(1)(d) as Appellant himself is a software developer.
He further submitted that the appellant has already been provided a large amount of information over the last 14 years pertaining to projects on open type fonts, language CDs, TDIL Data centre etc undertaken by CDAC Pune. The appellant wanted to sell his language software products to CDAC under language CD project but it could not materialise. It seems that information is not being sought for larger public interest, but for private and personal purposes.
The appellant had filed a court case in this matter in the year 2012 (OS no 8799/2012) against CDAC in the Hon'ble Court of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru city. The case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on 23rd March 2019.
The appellant has now filed a writ petition no. 26309/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court Bengaluru and made Ministry of Electronics and IT as respondent no. 3. The matter is subjudice and any further information sharing with the appellant may harm the interests of the Govt. Furthermore, the CPIO submitted a copy of the letter from D/o Legal Affairs Bengaluru to substantiate his plea.
He further submitted that the appellant tries to find fault in the documents obtained through RTI and contemplates filing of court cases and FIRs thereafter.
Furthermore during the hearing ,the CPIO submiDed that in respect of points no. 2 no informaAon is available on file for inlay card and general approval was taken from the concerned Minister. In respect of point no. 3 he submiDed that uploading of contents of "Tamil Software Tools" are automaAcally executed by C-DAC. There is no such informaAon on record. In respect of point no. 6 the CPIO submiDed that they traced the information 6 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC and the status note is available. In respect of point no. 7 and 8 the informaAon is not available on record.
The Appellant contended that being a citizen of India, he has every right to file as many RTI Applications as he likes. He further stated that information provided is misleading and fabricated, not to his satisfaction. Upon the Commission's query regarding the reasons why he feels the information provided is misleading or unsatisfactory, he insisted on alleged lack of bonafide in the conduct of the respondents.
The CPIO has urged to look into the issues faced by the public authority in dealing with the RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant as it has been incurring disproportionate diversion of resources.
Observations:
The appellant was given a patient hearing and each point of his second appeal was gone through in detail. The CPIO's contentions point wise were also recorded.
After hearing both the parties, the Commission fully agrees with the submissions of the CPIO regarding the nature of the information sought in the RTI Applications , Further it is also observed that the RTI Application has been responded to pointwise.
The reply dated 13.03.2018 reads as follows:
1. Information pertaining to the approval of design of CD inlay card The query is non-specific.
and CD cover of "Tamil software tools" CD released during INFITI However, photocopy of CD cover conference held during June 2010. of "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during INFITI conference held during June 2010 can be provided on the advance payment of Rs 4/- (Rs 2/- per copy)
2. Press Release issued on release of Tamil Software Tools" CD and No such press release is available through ILDC website during the Tamil Internet Conference held on record. during June 2010.
3. Information pertaining (approvals) to uploading of contents of The query is not complete, hence "Tamil Software Tools" CD released during INFITT conference held the relevant document (if available during June 2010. on record) could not be searched.
4. Information (approval, photograph, vide- in the form it exists) Photocopy of approval can be pertaining to release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD and through provided on the advance payment 7 ILDC website during the Tamil Internet Conference held during of Rs 2/- (Rs 2/- per copy) June 2010.
5. Tour programme of the "Ministry of Communication and To be provided by Shri Adarsh Information Technology" during the period between 20.06.2010 Kumar, DD & CPIO. to 27.06.2010.
6. Status Note prepared on release of "Tamil Software Tools" CD No such information/ document during INFITT conference. available on record.
7. Presentation made by Smt Swaran Lata during release of "Tamil No such information/ document Software Tools" CD during INFITT conference held during June available on record. 2010.
8. Speech made by Minister for "Ministry of Communication and No such information/ document Information Technology" during release of "Tamil Software Tools" available on record. CD during INFITT conference held during June, 2010.
On a perusal of the contents of the RTI application and the reply provided by the CPIO, it is noted that the reply given is pointwise. The FAA vide order dated 27.07.2018 observed as follows:
" Please refer to your appeal under RTI Act 2005 dated 12.07.2018 against information provided to you for your letters bearing no. 2001 (ADMIN)/NRTIA-19 (14-24) dated 18.11.2017 (having 75 separate requests) have been examined. It may be noted that MeitY has been providing information against all your earlier requests since 2005.
However, following is observed in relation to the current request:
2. You were provided with the certified copies of the available information by the CPIO to the extent information was available.
3. Sanction letters, etc. Of MEITY refers to certain orders/instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
3. Sanction letters, etc. of MEITY refers to certain orders/ instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
4. Documents created and submitted by C-DAC are their property and MeitY has fiduciary custody of these documets. These documents contain insight to technical and financial model of C-DAC working and disclosure of these may harm compe??ve posi?on of C-DAC as provided in sec 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also sec?on 8(1)(j) is to be read in totality and parts are not to be read independently.
5. The informa?on could not be provided free as large number of your queries is dispropor?onately diver?ng the resources of MEITY in understanding, searching, copying and dispatching the requested informa?on due to which office work suffers.8
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC In view of the above your appeal is rejected. "
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his right to information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior courts through various judgments as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities 9 spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the 10 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171277/DITEC limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still."
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The essence of this bench's rationale has been well captured by a coordinate bench in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA cited by the CPIO in his written submission wherein it was noted:
"11. A mentally sound person or sane senior citizen will not generally engage in sadistic filing of frivolous RTI applications. It is not known why this senior citizen has targeted this public authority which he served, found livelihood in and enjoying pension benefits from...."
"16. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject creates fear among the public authority. The feel tormented by such disgruntled/ retired employees consuming through RTI their precious resource apart from causing mental agony...."
Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, it is noted that the Appellant is in the habit of filing RTI applications repeatedly on the same issue. The hearing of this case was followed by another 19 cases of the same appellant on the similar subject. The Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of the RTI Act in future and refrain from making such demands for information from the respondent department which are voluminous, frivolous and have no public interest .
In respect of point no. 6 of the RTI application, the appellant requested the Commission to take action to file a police complaint. In the absence of any such 11 action, he would be compelled to initiate appropriate legal action. It is pertinent to mention that taking action to file a police complaint is beyond the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant is free to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum as per law.
The appellant's request to the Commission to advise the CPIO to mention the date of the letter while providing information or sending intimation under the Act was found true and the CPIO is accordingly advised to mention dates in all correspondence under the Act to prevent such confusion of timelines in future.
Decision:
In view of the appellant's contention in respect of points no. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 of the RTI application, the CPIO is directed to relook into the matter in the light of the appellant's second appeal and provide a revised reply in respect of points 1 to 3 and 6 of the RTI application within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. In respect of points no. 7 and 8 of the RTI application, information sought is not available on record and the CPIO cannot create information. Hence, no action is required in respect of points no. 7 and 8 of the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 12