Central Information Commission
Smt. Anita Chhabra vs Parliment Of India on 24 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000375/SG/12498
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000375/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Anita Chhabra
W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabra,
House no. 19, Type-3, Sector-1,
Sadik Nagar, New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Goyal
Joint Secretary & FAA Parliament of India Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House/Annexe, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 13/05/2010 PIO replied on : 07/06/2010 First Appeal filed on : 23/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order of : -------------
Second Appeal received on : 09/02/2011 Information Sought:
1. Provide copies of question and answers by the Member of Parliament and this Ministry against Central Information Commission since December 2009 asked as Short Notice Questions and Half- an-hour Discussion for Parliament questioners. How many questions were disallowed or answerless or lapsed. How many were admitted.
2. If above queries are not allowed to be disclosed under the Rajya Sabha working procedures, provide copies of such orders by which it is exempt from disclosure.
3. Provide all communication letters by which information on my two letters 06.03.2010 and 29.04.2010 was not allowed to be disclosed. Provide copies of notings/internal correspondences/orders by which it was considered not to disclose the information.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Information with respect to questions are available on the website www.rajyasabha.nic.in. As far as copies of permissions/ orders etc are concerned the PIO had stated that these are exempt under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO has not provided complete information. Moreover the information was denied using Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the complete information. Moreover the PIO has wrongly applied Section 8(1)
(c) of the RTI Act unnecessarily.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Anita Chhabra Respondent: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Joint Secretary & FAA;
The appellant has sought information about questions asked by MPs in the Rajya Sabha. The appellant has also sought copies and note sheets of questions which were not placed in the house. The PIO has denied this information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. The PIO has represented that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat examines the questions under the Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business in the Council of States". The PIO contends that this is done on behalf of Hon'ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Hence he states that, "when the secretariat is doing this work it is on behalf of Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Further, decisions on such like notices received from the member of Rajya Sabha are taken in terms of Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and in this process the Secretariat is exercising the powers and functions of Hon'ble Chairman Rajya Sabha. The decisions arrived at in terms of the said rules are privileged and protected from disclosure into the public domain. The control on the business of the house falls with the jurisdiction of the house itself and this is the Parliament Privilege. This being so, it is not felt appropriate to divulge the decision taking process in relation to the business of the house."
The contention of the PIO is that since the Secretariat has been delegated certain work the protection of the Parliament Privilege is extended to the secretariat. This is an interesting proposition but if this is to be accepted, various protection given to certain bodies would be extended far beyond its intended purpose. The Commission at this stage cannot but remember what Justice Mathew stated in his judgment in 1975 in Raj Narain Vs State of U.P. "In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business, is not in the interest of the pubic. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption."
Whether the denial of information to the citizen being is done validly, is the question which the Commission has to consider. When any institution or person denies a citizen's fundamental right great care needs to be taken. However, the majesty and privilege of the Parliament also have to be respected with equal care for democracy to function properly. This Commission realizes that there is no exact codification of Parliamentary Privilege. In view of this the Commission requests the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to consider whether giving this information would be a breach of privilege of the Parliament. If the Hon'ble Chairman comes to the conclusion that giving this information will not be a breach of privilege of Parliament the PIO is directed to provide the information. If the Chairman comes to the conclusion that providing this information would be a breach of privilege of Parliament the Appellant would be informed accordingly by the PIO.
The Appellant is alleging that there is a conflict of interest which is resulting in his not getting proper decision from the PIO, FAA and the Commission. The Commission is not able to see any merit in the appellant's allegation.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send this request with a copy of this order to the Hon'ble Chairman of Rajya Sabha and provide the information to the Appellant within 30 days of the decision given by the Chairman.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)