Central Information Commission
Raj Trehan vs Embassy Of India, Paris, France on 25 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIPFR/A/2024/605901
Shri Raj Trehan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Paris, France ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.03.2025
Date of Decision : 21.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.12.2023
PIO replied on : 17.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 17.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 01.02.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 13.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"(1) This is with reference to the United Nations Declaration on Race & Racial Prejudice, 1978.
(2) Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, please provide the certified copy of the documents showing the signature of the representative of India for the aforesaid declaration.
(3) If the said information does not exists with your office please transfer it to the appropriate CPIO u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(4) Please ensure that the document(s) provided are certified as per the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) office memorandum number 10/1/2013-IR dated 06-Oct-2015, which states that the PIO should endorse on the document True copy of the document/record supplied under the RTI Act, sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, PID and name of public authority.
(5) On receipt of the information under this application, the applicant and/or his/her authorized representative(s) intend to carry out actual inspection of the records at your office u/s 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Explanation to Section 4, Section 2(f) & 2(i), and the relevant RTI Rules 2012. The applicant and/or his/her authorized representative(s) be permitted such inspection."
The CPIO vide letter dated 17.01.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: The information is available in public domain. This link may be seen Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its twentieth session, Paris, 27 November 1978 - UNESCO Digital Library"
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.02.2024 stated as under:-
"Reply: Dear Sh Raj Trehan, Reference your First Appeal received on 17 January 2024. The information provided on 17/1/2024 by the CIPO to your RTI application requesting signed and stamped copy of the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its twentieth session, Paris 27 November 1978, is factual and correct."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Represented by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI consultant The respondent, through their written submission dated 19.03.2025, stated as follows:
The petitioner filed an online RTI application PMINY/R/E/23/00008 dated 09.11.2023 at Permanent Mission of India at New York seeking "certified copy of the United Nations Declaration on Race & Racial Prejudice, 1978 showing the signature of the Indian representative for the aforesaid declaration."
RTI application was transferred to the Embassy of India at Paris under new registration-number MEAPR/R/T/23/00003 where it was received online on 21.12.2023. RTI application was online responded on 17.01.2024 where it was informed that the sought information was available in public domain providing also the web-link of the 42-page document.
The petitioner filed his online First Appeal MEAPR/A/E/24/00002 dated 17.01.2024 which was online disposed of vide an order dated 01.02.2024 upholding CPIO's response.
RTI Act does not provide CPIO to authenticate information which is already available in public domain. Otherwise, whole idea of having section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act would have become irrelevant.
Otherwise also, Embassy of India at Paris is not custodian of the original document referred in the RTI application, and is also not aware of any Indian public authority which may be custodian of the document. According to an email dated 10.01.2024 received from Permanent delegation of India at UNESCO Paris, there is no information/certified copy of the document available in the records of Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO, Paris.
The Respondent further submitted that a copy of the said written submission has also been sent to the appellant via his registered email ID.
Decision:
A review of the records in the instant case reveals that the Respondent provided an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering that the PIO's response is legally sound and compliant Page 2 with the RTI Act, and since a copy of the written submission has also been supplied to the appellant, no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act. Therefore, the appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)