Central Information Commission
Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Directorate General Of Vigilance on 12 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGVCE/A/2020/692460
CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DDIT (Vig.), Pr. Directorate General of Income Tax
(Vigilance), RTI Cell, 2nd Floor,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/01/2023
Date of Decision : 10/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 14/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 17/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 09/11/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2020 seeking the following information:
1 Kindly provide details information available with Vigilance Department in respect of Undersigned Complaint A Complaint unique No. And date of receipt in the DGIT Vigilance 1 B name/ designation with official phone, mobile number, e mail numbers of Head official (dealing Complaint ) C name/ designation with official phone, mobile number, e mail numbers of E.O.(dealing Complaint ) .(dealing Complaint ) , D date of completion of Enquiry, E date of Enquiry report submission to the Senior Officer's Enquiry, F date of Enquiry report submission received back for taking action taken By Hd.
Asstt.
G date of Information supplied to the applicant/ Complainant H Name and designation of Officers covered in the Complaint 2 Kindly provide directory of officers including supervisor officer (up-to cvo), who has above points information . Information should include office address , E mail number , Phone number etc. 3 Kindly provide directory of officers including supervisor officer (up-to cvo), who has above points information . Information should include office address, E mail number , Phone number etc. 4 Kindly provide details (field name and detail of information ) available in the data base replied for point number 3 above.
5 Kindly provide ( in soft form like word file/ PDF file) print out of training material in built for layman user in the data bases used by DGIT replied for point number 3 above.
6 Kindly provide formats(dummy without actual data -in soft form like word file/ PDF file) of data available in data bases (replied for point number 3 above) used by DGIT - And also provide actual data printout related to Undersigned Complaints.
7 Kindly provide reports (dummy without actual data -in soft form like word file/ PDF file) that can be generated from data available in data bases (replied for point number 3 above) used by DGIT Vigilance And also provide actual data printout related to Undersigned Complaints.
8 Kindly provide the level of authorization level, who can generate reports/ extract data (by specify data/report ) from data available in data bases (Replied for point 2 number 3 above) used by DGIT Vigilance. And also provide actual data printout related to Undersigned Complaints list enclosed.
9 Kindly provide soft copy of returns / explanation (over delays/ short coming etc. as per return) sent to CVC by DGIT Vigilance office since 2010. Some period returns are given by CVC. On rest , it was informed that they are not traceable.
10 Kindly provide all the data available in data base related to all items , which are pending 2 times of normal time to dispose the matter 11 Kindly provide inspection related to above items 12 Kindly provide copies - related to above items in soft form pointed above and after inspection.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.10.2020 stating as under:
"....The reply of your RTI application (Regn. No DGIVN/R/E/20/00080) dated 30.09.2020 received in this office on 12.10.2020 is as under:
Point 2: Such information cannot be disclosed to the applicant as this information is third party information and relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Disclosure of this information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Therefore, it is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2020. FAA's order dated 09.11.2020, held as under -
3) The CPIO vide his order dated 14.10.2020 had denied the information as under:
"Such information cannot be disclosed to the applicant as this information is third party information and relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Disclosure of this information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual therefore, it is exempted under section 8(1)(j) and under section 7(9) of the RTf 3 Act 2005 as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority"
4) I have perused the facts of the case. On perusal of the RTI application dated 30.09.2020, it is observed that the first two points ask for details of information available with vigilance Department in respect of a complaint, the complaint no. and date of receipt. The remaining points ask for names of officials dealing with the complaint, their e-mail ids, phone numbers, mobile numbers, date of submission of enquiry report, copy of database of DGIT vigilance to track complaint, reports generated from the database using dummy date etc-etc. Even training material for using the data base has been asked for. Lastly inspection of all points mentioned has been asked for.
5) This RTI application seeking information on 12 points thus appears to serve no public interest. The details of database, its trainer manual, phone numbers and email ids; inspection of everything is an exercise in mongorering for issues which have no connection with public interest whatsoever. The exhaustive list seeking phone numbers, email ids can be seen as an attempt to influence through coercion or fear.
6) In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the CPIO...."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Pandey, DDIT (Vig.)(Hq.) & CPIO present in person.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal of the Appellant has been heard together simultaneously along with a bunch of his 15 more Second Appeals. As regards his submission to the instant Appeal, the Appellant vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply at length with a belief that the information sought by him should be made public as per the mandate of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. He further harped on the inaction/administrative latches on the part of CVO/CVC in non-disposal of his complaints as per the stipulated time frame and that too after a delay of more than 16 years. In this regard, he sought the intervention of the Commission and also requested for penal action against the CPIO coupled with an award for compensation in his favour.4
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 06.01.2023 and submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant available inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. He further submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in a prescribed format is voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which entail diversion of the resources of the Public Authority. Thus, it cannot be shared in the desired form in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act, and that the said factual position has already been intimated to the Appellant . He further added that will not be out of place to mention that the details of information sought also contains the elements of personal information of said third parties officers/complainants which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that however noble the premise of the Appellant may be in seeking for the averred categories of information but the manner in which it has been sought for is extremely cumbersome and in a format that entails s disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act which states as under:
"...(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
The Commission in this regard places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"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 5 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 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."
The mere argument that the information sought for is in the context of Section 4(1)(b) mandate of the RTI Act does not automatically negate the aspects of coherence and specifics required in the contents of the RTI Application. Similarly, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that some of the points of the RTI Application also seek information of a personal nature of third parties, for instance details of officers dealing with the subject matter complaints (as mentioned in the RTI Application), directory of supervisor officers and other allied information, such categories of information also stand exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:6
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. In view of this, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a complete copy of his latest written submission along with the annexures free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8