Central Information Commission
Chandrasekharan Praveen vs The English And Foreign Languages ... on 30 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/TEFLU/C/2017/602549-BJ
Dr. Chandrasekharan Praveen,
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Registrar I/C,
The English & Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad 500605
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2018
Date of Decision : 30.08.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 09.01.2017
CPIO's response 19.01.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 20.02.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the name, designation and institutional affiliation of the member of the interview board who asked him the Question "who decides what is best in Indian Culture", whether API score obtained by candidates called for interview were published, if not, the reasons for not publishing and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.01.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant denying information on point no.01 and 05 u/s 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, information on point 06 was denied u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Chandrasekharan Praveen through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Muralidhar Tadi, PIO/ Jt. Registrar through VC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that satisfactory information had not been provided. The Respondent submitted that the CPIO had furnished a point-wise reply. The First Appeal was also replied on 25.05.2017. Acknowledging the receipt of the replies from the CPIO/FAA, the Complainant expressed his reservation on the nature of responses. It was however admitted that the marks obtained by him in the interview had already been provided. Explaining the procedure and policy for conduct of interviews it was submitted by the Respondent that the API Scores had never been uploaded as per extant guidelines. Moreover, the Complainant had drawn attention in his RTI application to the programmes of CCRT which was a different public authority and had no relevance with the present Respondent.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 5
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497 in the context of claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005, held as under:
"53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/co-ordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co- ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Those portions of the answer books which contain information regarding the examiners/co- ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer books, under Section 10 of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision was relied in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9052 OF 2012 dated 13.12.2012 wherein it was held as under:
"30. The above reasoning of the Bench squarely applies to the present case as well. The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie Page 3 of 5 endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose. Furthermore, the view of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that element of bias can be traced and would be crystallized only if the names and addresses of the examiners/interviewers are furnished is without any substance. The element of bias can hardly be co-related with the disclosure of the names and addresses of the interviewers. Bias is not a ground which can be considered for or against a party making an application to which exemption under Section 8 is pleaded as a defence. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. Suffice it to note that the reasoning of the High Court is not in conformity with the principles stated by this Court in the CBSE case (supra). The transparency that is expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the disclosure of the information called for under query No.1 of the application. Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking. Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act."
As regards the information sought regarding the marks obtained by the selected candidates, the Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible. Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in Page 4 of 5 the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
The Complainant could not contest or substantiate the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 30.08.2018 Page 5 of 5