Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 16 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 Nos./ ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos.:-.
CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/605154-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606126-BJ +
CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606128-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606149-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606697-BJ +
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608419-BJ+
CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608424-BJ
Mr. Siddharth Joshi,
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant /
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2018
Date of Decision : 16.08.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/605154-BJ Date of RTI application 10.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the Commission Nil Page 1 of 10 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding copy of minutes of meeting of the last three meetings of the Governing Council/Board of Governors of IIM Ahmedabad.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 07.09.2017 denied disclosure of information stating that the information sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA order, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
RTI-2: CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606126-BJ + CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606128-BJ Date of RTI application 05.09.2017 CPIO's response 29.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 3 points regarding list of all Board of Governors Meeting held during the period January to August 2017, minutes of meeting along with the agenda and list of attendees, copy of all documents circulated for discussion for the meeting either before, or during or after the meetings.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 29.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-3: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606149-BJ Date of RTI application 10.08.2017 CPIO's response 07.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 05.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copies of minutes of meeting of the last three meetings of the Governing Council/Board of Governors of IIM Ahmedabad.
The CPIO vide letter dated 07.09.2017 denied disclosure of information stating that the information sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response stating that board discusses many agenda which were strategic and confidential in nature.
Page 2 of 10
RTI 4: CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606697-BJ
Date of RTI application 01.09.2017
CPIO's response 29.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points relating to the Board of Governors meetings held on 04.09.1964 on the following points:
1. A copy of Agenda of the meeting.
2. A copy of minutes of meeting.
3. A copy of list of attendees.
4. Copy of any other document related to the meeting circulated before or after the meeting.
The CPIO vide letter 29.09.2017 stated that the sought information was confidential and strategic in nature. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission RTI 5: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608419-BJ Date of RTI application 01.09.2017 CPIO's response 29.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 21.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 08.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points relating to the Board of Governors meetings held on 04.09.1964 on the following points:
1. A copy of Agenda of the meeting.
2. A copy of minutes of meeting.
3. A copy of list of attendees.
4. Copy of any other document related to the meeting circulated before or after the meeting.
The CPIO vide letter 29.09.2017 stated that the sought information was confidential and strategic in nature. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 08.11.2017, concurred with the CPIOs response.
Page 3 of 10
RTI-6: CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608424-BJ
Date of RTI application 05.09.2017
CPIO's response 29.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 09.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 08.11.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information for the period January to August, 2017 on 03 points:
1. List of all the Board of Governors Meeting held for the abovementioned period.
2. Minutes, agenda of meeting along with attendees.
3. Copy of related documents circulated before, during or after the meeting.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.09.2017 stated that the Board of Governors meeting were held every quarter wherein many agenda items were discussed which were strategic and confidential in nature therefore, the entire agenda and minutes could not be shared. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 08.11.2017 concurred with the CPIO response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant/Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Joshi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. K. V. Ramchandran, PIO and Mr. S. N. Rao, Head (HR) FAA's representative through VC;
The Complainant/Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that he remained dissatisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO. Explaining that the minutes of the Governing Council/Board Governors ought to be disclosed to him, the Complainant/ Appellant stated that the CPIO/ FAA gave a non-reasoned response without clearly stating the grounds for rejection of information. During the hearing, while submitting that similar information was furnished to him by the other IIMs, the Complainant/Appellant stated that all such minutes barring those which were related to trade secret / confidential in nature etc. could have been withheld but the remaining information pertained to larger public interest and fit for disclosure. It was explained by the Respondent that a suitable reply had been furnished to the Complainant/Appellant by the CPIO/FAA. Furthermore, it was argued that conventionally they had not disclosed the minutes of the meeting of BoG/Council as it was felt that such meetings were confidential in nature that focused on vast spectrum of issues. On being queried by the Commission that in the larger interest of the students and faculty, the minutes of such meetings should be suo-motu disclosed and encapsulating the spirit of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent admitted that they had not examined this aspect at length.Page 4 of 10
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 30.07.2018 wherein while praying to adjourn the hearing to any date after 16.08.2018, stated that the FAA (Cdr. Manoj Bhatt) was out of country and would be back on 14.08.2018. The Dy. Registrar in the meanwhile had drawn the attention of the Respondent vide his email dated 02.08.2018 to point-07 of the notice of hearing wherein it was stated that no adjournment / review shall be permitted.
The Commission was in receipt of another Written Submission from the Respondent dated 01.08.2018, wherein it was stated that the Appellant had filed 74 RTI applications and 25 First Appeals during the last three years seeking voluminous information. In the absence of specific requests, it was difficult for the Institute to respond such queries. Explaining that the Appellant was an FPM Student at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, it was stated that he was publishing information related to IIM Ahmedabad in certain publications. On a number of occasions, he was requested to visit their institute to see the records but he did not turn up.
Moreover, in most of the cases, there was no larger public interest. While referring to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner of Gujarat in Appeal No. 133/2006-07 dated 01.09.2016, it was stated that the applicant should specify specific subject, specific time period, specific details while requesting for the information under the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, a reference was also made to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner Gujarat in SCA No. 16073/2007 dated 16.08.2007, decision of the Central Information Commission in CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 and 367 dated 05.06.2008, CIC/OK/A/2006/00605 dated 30.04.2007 and Judgement No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001765 dated 24.04.2012 to submit that the applicant was filing RTI applications in order to disturb the working of the Public Authority. Moreover, a specific submission was made by the Respondent in respect of each of the above cases under consideration as stipulated below:
Complaint and Second Appeal No.: - CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/605154 Second Appeal Nos.: -
CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606126 and CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606128 and CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/606149-BJ wherein the order of the Chief Information Commissioner of Gujarat in Appeal No. 133/2006-07 dated 01.09.2016 was referred in which it had been mentioned that applicants should specify specific subject, specific time period, specific details while requesting for the information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Complaint No. CIC/IIMAD/C/2017/606697-BJ wherein it was stated that the information sought by the Complainant related to verifying various documents related to BoG meetings. The process could adversely affect the resources of the institute hence u/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought could not be provided. In this context a reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in CIC/OK/A/2006/00605 dated 30.04.2007.
Appeal No. CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608419-BJ wherein it was stated that the CPIO had already replied vide letter dated 29.09.2017.
Appeal no. CIC/IIMAD/A/2017/608424-BJ wherein it was stated that the CPIO had already replied vide letter dated 29.09.2017.Page 5 of 10
The Commission referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"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.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."Page 6 of 10
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the Page 7 of 10 governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Commission was unable to ascertain as to how disclosure of minutes of meeting could cause any adverse effect to the affairs of the Respondent Institute. Section 4 (1) (b) ((vii) of the RTI Act, 2005 prescribes that Every Public Authority shall publish within 120 days from the enactment of the Act a statement of the Boards, Council, Committees and other bodies of two or Page 8 of 10 more persons constituted as its part or for its advice as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies were open to public or the minutes of the meetings were accessible for the public. In the present instance no reference was made by the Respondent to any such statement issued by them. It was also informed to the Respondent that it was a usual practice of this Commission as well to publish details of minutes of meeting on its website. Moreover, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions regarding uploading of collegium's resolutions should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
" THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater... The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 7/10/2013 [W.P. (C) 4079/2013 Union Public Service Commission vs. G S Sandhu] while observing that denial of notings altogether was not justified directed to block the name, designation or any other indication which disclose or tend to disclose the identity of author and held as under:
"11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of KVS v. CIC and Anr. W.P.(C) 6892/2009 dated 15.09.2009 while upholding the decision of the Commission had held as under:
"The only objection raised by the petitioner against the supply of statement of witnesses was under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said provision stipulates that information disclosure of which would endanger life and physical safety of any person or identity, the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes need not be supplied. The Page 9 of 10 Information Commissioner keeping in mind Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has directed that the name of the witnesses need not be disclosed to the respondent No.2.
In fact the order passed by the Information Commissioner seeks to rely upon section 10, which permits withholding of certain portions of information by applying severability principle. The order of the Information Commissioner takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner."
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to disclose the information sought by the Appellant in each of the matters listed above forthwith and not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission however advised the Respondent to endorse a copy of their written submission to the Complainant/ Appellant, as well.
The Commission furthermore observed that there was lack of clarity in respect of the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, it instructed the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint/Appeal 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: 16.08.2018
Copy to:
1- The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 2- The Director, Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015 Page 10 of 10