Central Information Commission
Mallikarjun Shirasangi vs National Commission For Women (Ncw) on 12 July, 2022
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/NCFWO/A/2021/642179
Mallikarjun Shirasangi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for Women,
RTI Cell, Plot No.21, Jasola
Institutional Area, New Delhi-110025. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/07/2022
Date of Decision : 11/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 08/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 05/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/08/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"1) Please provide the Name, Designation, Phone number and address of the officer who is giving this information along with Name, Designation, Phone number and address of the First Appellant authority of this RTI application.1
2) Provide the copy of the summons issued and written statement received by Vanishri Gopal Shetty related to Reference 1) of NCW Grievance.
3) Provide the copy of the summons issued and written statement received from Vanishri Shetty's husband or father of Bhoomika Shetty Nithin.B.E , related to grievance related to Reference 1) of NCW Grievance. If summons not issued and written statement not taken by Mr. Nithin B.E prior to dispose the case, please provide the reason.
4) Provide the past incident details of Vanishri and her husband Nithin.B E, given in written that you have considered as ground to dispose the case and allowed to use fake birth certificate for Female Bhoomika Shetty.
5) Provide the copy of the summons issued and written statement of remaining respondents Veena Gopal Shetty, Nithish Gopal Shetty, Rajesh Shetty and Geeta Shetty who are part of the NCW grievance. If there is no summons issued and no written statement collected, please provide the reason along with supporting copy.
6) Please provide the reason for creating and using the fake Birth Certificate to Bhoomika Shetty based on the inquiry done along with supporting evidence copy.
7) Prima Facia, the material fact there are two birth certificates on Bhoomika Shetty, please provide the action taken to deliver the Justice to Bhoomika Shetty from gender discriminations and to stopping Right to Live with Liberty.
8) Please provide the information that, in any of the circumstances Whether National Commission for Women (NCW) will allow to use illegally created fake birth certificate by deposing the case or not.
9) Please provide the information that Female Bhoomika Shetty need to be continue with Original Birth Certificate or Fake Birth Certificate from onwards after disposing this case by Police or NCW.
10) Please provide the clear action taken report to give Justice to Bhoomika Shetty against the Gender Discrimination and Right to live with dignity as per NCW grievance."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 08.07.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1:- As per available records, the custodian of the concerned case file is the Complaint & Investigation Cell, NCW and name, Phone numbers, email Id, etc. are available on the NCW website. Also, the information of the First Appellate Authority is mentioned below in the letter.
Point No. 2:- As per available records, no such information available with NCW. Point No. 3:- As per available records, no such information available with NCW.2
Point No. 4:- As per available records, no such information available with NCW. Point No. 5:- As per available records, no such information available with NOW. Point No. 6:- The sought information does not pertain to NOW. Point No. 7:- The sought information does not pertain to NCW. Point No. 8:- The sought information does not pertain to NCW. Point No. 9:- The sought information does not pertain to NCW. Point No. 10:- As per available records, the Action Taken Report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Kannada, Karnataka is annexed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2021. FAA's order dated 05.08.2021 held as under:-
"...........CPIO (C & I Cell) is directed to provide information as per available record in point No. 1 to 10 with reference to RTI application dated 07.06.2021 filed by the appellant within 15 working days."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order and also on the ground of non-receipt of complete and correct information from the CPIO against points no. 2-9 of RTI Application, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Arun Khurana, SO & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that in compliance with FAA's order a revised point wise reply along with the certified copy of the complaints filed by the Appellant coupled with Action taken report on it was supplied to him on 07.09.2021.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application is of the considered view that the copies of summons/ written statements of third parties on his complaint as sought by the Appellant at points no. 2 to 5 of RTI Application contains the elements of personal information which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The said observation is in lines with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public 3 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:
"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..."
However, ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIO has erred in parting with certain third party's personal information to the Appellant in response to averred points without seeking consent of third parties under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and always follow the due process of law as envisaged under the RTI Act before parting with any third party's personal information which attracts exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
It is further observed from the records that the queries raised by the Appellant at points no. 6 to 9 of RTI Application do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought for clarifications/inferences from the CPIO based on speculations; to that extent the reply of the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act merits of which cannot be called into question. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts 4 immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, considering the fact that the CPIO has already furnished substantial information to the Appellant in response to RTI Application, no further relief can be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5