Central Information Commission
Srikanth Sreedhar vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 9 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/613013
Shri SRIKANTH SREEDHAR ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2024
Date of Decision : 07.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2024
PIO replied on : 15.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 15.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"The New Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has Section 78(2) : Stalking.
As Mr Amit Shah has said that he has tried to make the laws as GENDER NEUTRAL, can a guy give complaint against another GUY for Stalking under Section 78(2)?
In my case, Mother Fucker Amai Mahesha and other NITK Stalkers failed me again and again FOUR TIMES by IDENTIFYING my handwriting and drafting style in DRAWING SHEET. They caused me to lose ONE ACADEMIC YEAR, JOB WITH TCS as TCS withdrew the JOB OFFER after they failed me and prevented me from getting the DEGREE CERTIFICATE so that I BECOME ENGINEER. The NITK GRC Chairman on the day of the murder of NITK STUDENT ANAND PATHAK WAS THE SAME PERSON WHO DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT IN WHICH I WAS STALKED, THERE ARE WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM THE NITK CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, NITK GRC CONVENOR, NITK REGISTRAR, NITK DEAN ACADEMIC AND NITK CPIO that point to foul play BY NITK GRC CHAIRMAN in the death of Anand Pathak..
Page 1 Eventually, my stalkers were caught in the act and my marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet. But they were not punished.
Hence, I want INFORMATION from Govt of India on whether SECTION 78(2) is GENDER NEUTRAL."
The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 15.01.2024 replied as under:-
"........it is informed that the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, attempt has been made to elicit answer to your question. The applicants right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. Hence, your application is not covered under the term information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.01.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 03.05.2024 has been received from CPIO, MHA, Judicial wing and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
Sh. Srikanth Sreedhar, vide his RTI application No. MHOME/R/E/24/00176 dated 12/01/2024, had sought following information:
"The New Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has section 78(2): Stalking. As Mr. Amit Shah has said that he has tried to make the laws as Gender Netural, can a guy give complaint against another guy for stalking under Section 78(2)?
In my case, Mother Fucker Amai Mahesha and other NITK Stalkers failed me again and again four times by identifying my handwriting and drafting style in drawing sheet. The caused me to loose one academic year, job with TCS as TCS withdrew the Job Offer after they failed me and prevented me from getting the Degree Certificate so that I become engineer. The NITK GRC Chairman on the day of the murder of the NITK Student Anand Pathak was the same person who dealt with the subject in which I was stalked. There are written statements from the NITK Chief Vigilance Officer, NITK GRC Convenor, NITK Registrar, NITK Dean Academic and NITK CPIO that point to foul play by NITK GRC Chairman in the death of Anand Pathak.
Eventually, my stalkers were caught in the act and my marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet. But they were not punished.
Page 2 Hence, I want information from Govt. of India on whether Section 78(2) is Gender neutral."
2. The reply of the RTI application was given on 15.01.2024, the text of which is:
"In this regard it is informed that the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, attempt has been made to elicit answer to your question. The applicants right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. Hence, your application is not covered under the term information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
Further, it is also stated here that the 1 appeal dated 16.01.2024 made by the applicant has not been received in this Wing for which the action on the same could not be taken.
3. In view of the facts that CPIO, Judicial Wing, MHA had already replied to his RTI application and her 1 Appeal having not been received in the Judicial Wing, MHA, it is humbly submitted that the reply on part of Judicial Wing of Ministry of Home Affairs may be taken into consideration. It is, further, submitted that there is no fact to be suppressed or to be furnished to the applicant. It is, therefore, requested that while considering above mentioned appeal of the applicant by the Hon'ble CIC, the reply on part of Judicial Wing of the Ministry of Home Affairs may also be taken into consideration.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Chandra, DS and Mr Sunil Kumar Singh, US The Respondent stated that the queries raised in the instant RTI Application is clarificatory in nature. They further stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, 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. Commission notes that giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are Page 3 beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)