Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 11 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/103173
Omprakash Kashiram अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
US, AVD-IV(LP)
Ministry of Personnel, Public
& Grievances & Pentions,
(DOP&T), North Block, New
Delhi-110001
CPIO
AVD-II (PT),
Ministry of Personnel, Public
& Grievances & Pentions,
(DOP&T), North Block, New
Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 10/02/2021
Date of Decision : 10/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2018
CPIO replied on : 29/11/2018
First appeal filed on : 04/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/01/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.10.2018 and sought for the following information:
1. "Provide the relevant documents duly attested by Public information Officer for not taking sue moto action for appointment of Lokpal (Superior Autonomous body compare with CBI) due to the image of CBI is tarnish by the following authority/organization :-
(i) The Government of India for sending CBI director/Special Director on leave.
(ii) Electronics Medias and print media are publishing/broadcasting news against CBI Director/Special director for corruption.
(iii) Political parties also protest against Central Government of India for CBI dispute between the Director/Special Director.
(iv) Dispute between duties allocation among Director of CBI and Special Director of CBI in CBI Headquarters.
2. Give the reasons for not taking the sue moto action for appointment of Lokpal (autonomous body) due to Lokpal is involved in large public interest after tarnish image of CBI by media, Government of India and Political parties among public.
3. Provide the documents duly attested by PIO with name and designation regarding date of validity of Act for implementation after enactment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2014 from the date of passing of said Act by both houses and signed by the President of India.
4. Provide the documents duly attested by PIO with name and designation as per the records of SCI regarding the sanctioned post of Director of Central Bureau of Investigation and special director under the CBI Act.
5. Provide the documents duly attested by PIO with name and designation regarding the copy Act/resolution/judgment under which authority has appointed the Special Director in CBI on already existing the post of Director in CBI as per CBI Act and police power has been provided under the DSPE Act 1946.
6. Provide the documents duly attested by PIO with name and designation of PIO regarding duties allocation for CBI Director and Special Director of CBI in CBI Headquarters, New Delhi."
The CPIO provided detailed information to the appellant on 29.11.2018 against point Nos. 1 to 3 and for the remaining queries he was informed that no such information is available with their office.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2018. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: S.P.R. Tripathi, US & CPIO and Kundan Nath, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO(s) submitted that an appropriate and point-wise reply has been provided to the Appellant incorporating the available information.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and in fact the queries are extremely incoherent and in most places the import of the queries is incomprehensible. Nonetheless, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO has provided the available information in a point-wise manner to the Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
Adverse Observations This bench of the Commission heard 11 other Appeals of the Appellant simultaneously and upon a conjoint consideration of these cases it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is unabashedly filing multiple RTI Applications, which in most cases is repetitive in nature as the same RTI Application is filed with different public authorities. Moreover, the queries of the Appellant neither conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor can these be comprehended easily. The Appellant seeks all sundry information under the garb of transparency and in the process of dealing with these RTI Applications, at some point in time, invariably; each public authority is dealing with the same RTI Application more than once. The Commission is also irked to note that in all of these Appeals, the Appellant has stated in his Second Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case in person or through his representative also. This further establishes the fact that the Appellant is merely a habitual RTI Applicant with no intention of gaining access to information. The RTI Applications, First Appeal(s) and Second Appeals of the Appellant without any substance or merit has a cascading effect on the functioning of the public authorities and throttles the letter and spirit of the RTI Act in addition to causing a huge loss of public money on stationery and allied resources.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Appellant shall note that even the superior Courts have recognized the misuse of the RTI Act as an impediment to ensuring transparency and probity in the functioning of the government through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"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 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 prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to steer clear of inundating the public authorities with frivolous RTI Applications.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Omprakash Kashiram