Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Police on 16 February, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/103855
CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/103854
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/118570
CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/118571
CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/134320
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/134319
Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra ...
अपीलकता /Appellant/
Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 08.02.2023
Date of Decision : 16.02.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
103855 23.08.2020 23.09.2020 22.10.2020 24.11.2020 27.01.2021
103854 23.08.2020 23.09.2020 - 24.11.2020
118570 23.12.2020 20.01.2021 23.01.2021 18.02.2021& 05.05.2021
& 05.02.2021
15.01.2021
118571 23.12.2020 20.01.2021 - 18.02.2021 05.05.2021
134320 31.01.2021 09.03.2021 05.04.2021 06.05.2021 25.08.2021
134319 31.01.2021 09.03.2021 05.04.2021 06.05.2021 25.08.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/103855 (2) CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/103854 The Appellant/ Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2020 seeking information on following 13 points:-Page 1 of 11
Etc. The PIO /Addl. DCP(I), North West District vide letter dated 23.09.2020 furnished the information obtained from SHO/PS Shalimar Bagh is as under:-Page 2 of 11
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2020. The FAA/DCP, North West District vide order dated 24.11.2020 stated as under:-
In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO/Addl. DCP(I), North West District vide letter dated 17.12.2020 furnished a fresh point wise information obtained from ACP/Sub-Division Shalimar Bagh is as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing. He referred to the mobile numbers mentioned in his RTI applications which were used to abuse and threaten him and to breach his privacy. However, no action was taken on his complaint and his RTI application was also answered by the SHO/ Inspector and not the jurisdictional PIO. The first appeal was also decided in a template manner without any application of mind. In addition, the reply dated 23.09.2020 was not with regard to his application but to an application filed by one Shri Manoj Kumar.
The Respondent were represented by Shri Swadesh Prakash, ACP, Shalimar Marg; Shri Imteyaz Khan, Inspector (on behalf of SHO Shalimar Bagh); Shri Vijay Singh, ASI and Shri Harvinder Singh, HC. The Respondent stated that allegations levelled by the Appellant/ Complainant were inquired and filed after necessary examination as no cognizable offence was made out. A revised point wise response was also provided to the Appellant/ Complainant in compliance with the Page 3 of 11 FAA's order. Regarding the discrepancy pointed out by the Appellant it was admitted that there was an error in mentioning the name of Shri Manoj Kumar in the subject of the reply. However, the reply pertained to the Appellant/ Complainant and not a third party.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission finds that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information that is held and available in the record of the public authority can be provided which has been done in the present instance. There has undoubtedly been negligence on the part of the PIO in mentioning the name of Shri Manoj Kumar in the subject line of the initial reply dated 23.09.2020 for which the PIO /Addl. DCP(I), North West District is cautioned. However, no malafide intent can be attributed to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action as per Section 20 (1). No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint which are disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/118570 (4) CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/118571 The Appellant/ Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2020 seeking information on following points:-
Etc. The CPIO /Addl. DCP (I), North West District vide letter dated 20.01.2021 replied as under:-Page 4 of 11
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2021. The FAA/DCP, North West District vide order dated 18.02.2021 stated as under:-
The PIO/DCP, Establishment PHQ vide letter dated 15.01.2021 replied as under:-
The FAA/Jt. Commissioner of Police, HDQRS, vide order dated 05.02.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint.Page 5 of 11
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing. He stated that the replies provided were not satisfactory since as an ordinary citizen he cannot be expected to know the belt details of an officer. Instead of providing the information, the PIO shifted the onus to provide the details on him and also unlawfully directed him to file a fresh RTI application after obtaining such details.
The Respondent were represented by Shri Swadesh Prakash, ACP, Shalimar Marg; Shri Imteyaz Khan, Inspector (on behalf of SHO Shalimar Bagh); Shri Vijay Singh, ASI and Shri Harvinder Singh, HC. The Respondent stated that a revised reply was provided to the Appellant/ Complainant in compliance with the FAA's order.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that efforts should be made by the PIO to extract the information as sought in the RTI application from their database to the extent that it is permissible for disclosure as per the provisions of the Act as ordinary citizens cannot be expected to have prior knowledge about such details. Thus, a revised response in accordance with the provisions of the Act should be provided by the PIO cum Addl DCP, North West District by 15.03.2023 under intimation to the Commission. However, while disclosing information cognizance should be taken of para 59 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 dated 13.11.2019.
In addition, no malafide intent can be attributed to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action as per Section 20 (1). The instant Second Appeal/ Complaint are disposed off as such.
(5) CIC/DEPOL/C/2021/134320 (6) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/134319 The Appellant/ Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.12.2020 seeking information on 18 points:-Page 6 of 11
Etc. The PIO /Addl. DCP(I), North West District vide letter dated 09.03.2021 replied as under:-Page 7 of 11
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/ Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2021. The FAA/DCP, North West District vide order dated 06.05.2021 stated as under:-
The PIO/ACP/PG, North West District vide interim reply dated 24.05.2021 intimated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/ Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/ Complaint.Page 8 of 11
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant/ Complainant participated in the hearing. He stated that point wise information was not provided to his satisfaction and that the FAA's order was also not complied with, till date. He also argued that information pertaining to illegal encroachment should be available with the Delhi Police as per the statement given by the Former CP of Delhi Shri B S Bassi on 20.12.2014 wherein he mentioned that it is the duty of the concerned SHO to inform the MCD about encroachments and illegal constructions.
The Respondent were represented by Shri Swadesh Prakash, ACP, Shalimar Marg; Shri Imteyaz Khan, Inspector (on behalf of SHO Shalimar Bagh); Shri Vijay Singh, ASI and Shri Harvinder Singh, HC. The Respondent stated that information on points 1 to 3 was already provided to the Appellant/ Complainant as per available record vide the initial reply dated 09.03.2021. Disclosure of information on the remaining points was examined vide letter dated 14.07.2021 sent in compliance of the FAA's order dated 06.05.2021, the relevant extract of which is as under:
In addition, the Respondent stated that the jurisdictional police provides protection to the MCD officials while conducting raids but no recommendation/ conclusion is drawn by Delhi Police regarding the legal/ illegal status of any particular property.Page 9 of 11
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available on records and permissible for disclosure under the Act can be provided. Vide his RTI application, the Appellant is seeking omnibus information on scores of matters disclosing which would require collation and compilation of records. The Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"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 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, it is noted that a reasoned response is given vide letter dated 14.07.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the information regarding internal structure, deployment, transfer, posting, beat books and daily work diary, etc if made public then such information can be used in sabotage of law and order situation, safety and security of residents and senior citizens or can be used in planning of criminal activities and would conflict with the other public interest including efficient operation of the government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information as mentioned in the preamble to the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay's case has succinctly dealt with harmonious construction of the conflicting provisions of the Act. The relevant observations are as under:
"61. Some High Courts have held that Section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to Section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that therefore Section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This may not be the correct approach. The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and Page 10 of 11 accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests. While Sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective. Therefore when Section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfillment and preservation of democratic ideals.
62. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualize and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act that is Section 8 of Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The Courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonizes the two objects of the Act, while interpreting Section 8 and the other provisions of the Act."
Furthermore, no malafide intent can be attributed to the conduct of the PIO to initiate penal action as per Section 20 (1). Hence in view of the above observations, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal and Complaint which are disposed off as such.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
Page 11 of 11