Central Information Commission
Kaushik Bhattacharjee vs Ministry Of Women & Child Development on 10 January, 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/MOWCD/A/2020/117967
Kaushik Bhattacharjee ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Women and Child
Development, RTI Cell,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2022
Date of Decision : 05/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/02/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 13/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/06/2020
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2020 seeking the following information;
1. "Are you aware of the fact that as per data published by N.C.R.B., about 88% of Bride torture, 73% Rape & 74% molestation cases are false and also suicide of male is much higher than female ?
2. In case of mental torture & abuse committed by bride against M.I.L., S.I.L., what legal remedies are available for M.I.L., S.I.L., for taking action against bride as M.I.L. & S.I.L. are also women ?
3. If the answer to the Question No. 2 is "No legal remedy for M.I.L., S.I.L., against mental torture & abuse committed by bride", is it not deliberate violation of Preamble, Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and also 15(3) read with Article 39A of the C.O.I. ?
4. Whether National Commission for Women and/or State Commission for Women are acting like National Commission for Wives and/or State Commission for Wives behind the mask of National Commission for Women and/or State Commission for Women ?
5. Whether you have proposed for suitable amendment in I.P.C. and/or Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for protection of M.I.L., S.I.L., who are the victims of mental torture & abuse due to severe misuse of Section 498A of I.P.C. and/or Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?
6.If the answer to the Question No. 5 is `No', please give me legal opinion as a 'P.A.' ?
7. Whether you have proposed for suitable amendment in Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, that even allows single (unmarried) women to terminate their pregnancy up to 24 weeks, even in the era of widely available various types of contraceptives ? Say 'Yes' or `No'.
8. If the Government of India, through the proposed amendment of the said Act, recognize and encourage the right of unprotected 'Sexual Intercourse, Pregnancy & Abortion for single (unmarried) women', then why the one sided, gender biased 'Rape and Molestation Law' {Sexual Intercourse with false promise of marriage} should still exists ?
9. Please give me legal opinion, as a 'P.A.', why the Government of India should not think about suitable amendment of the I.P.C., for gender neutral 'Rape & Molestation Law', when already about 80 Countries in the World make their own laws gender neutral and also Law Commission of India through its 172th report already recommended to the Govt. of India for gender neutral Rape & Sexual harassment Laws in India ?
10. Please give me your opinion as a 'P.A.', whether the insertion of scientific advancement and rationality in law is only for the empowerment 2 of young women but not for modernization of all archaic gender biased laws in India ?"
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Mirtyunjay Kumar, U.S. & CPIO along with Arun Khurana, S.O. & CPIO, National Commission for Woman, New Delhi present through audio- conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Appellant that the information sought by him through instant RTI Application do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as it largely forms a part of seeking clarifications/inferences from the CPIO. In response to it, the Appellant vehemently contested that he has sought clarifications but the CPIO under RTI Act is bound to provide the same.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 05.01.2022 as under -
"....(iii) The above-mentioned RTI Application and thereafter the RTI Appeal dated 13.03.2020 were received during Lock-down period in physical mode in 2020, when the offices was either closed or functioning with minimal staff and hence could not be responded by the then CPIO I Appellate Authority. However, these papers are traced now only on receipt of Notice of Hearing from CIC by the undersigned CPI0.
(iv) The information sought by the application vide point (1) of the application relates to data of bride torture as published by the NCRB, which is available at the website of NCRB itself. As per RTI Act, the CPI0 and/or Public Authority is not required to analyse the available data and provide the conclusion to the applicant. Further, point nos. (2) to (6) and (8) to (10) seeks interpretation of different legislation as well legal / personal opinion of CPIO / Public Authority on legal provisions on hypothetical situations. Review of policies/ programmes, laws etc. is a continuous process and the Government takes appropriate 3 measure based on feed back received from stakeholders and based on leanings from implementation at ground level. Further, The Ministry does not administer the IPC / Cr.PC and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971; hence has no information related to these legislation. However, a copy of the RTI Application is being forwarded to Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare for providing information directly to the applicant.
(v) xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
In view of this, only available information can be provided and whatever is not available in the records of a Public Authority, cannot be provided to the applicant...."
Shri Arun Khurana, U.S. & CPIO, National Commission for Woman also invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 05.01.2022 , significant excerpts of which are narrated below -
"..iv. On perusal of RTI Application/Ist Appeal, the information pertaining to point no. 4 partially relates with the National Commission for Women. v. The information pertaining to the point no. 4 is as - National Commission for Women was constituted under The National Commission for Women Act, 1990 (Act 20 of 1990) and works as per its mandate. Copy of the Act is available on public domain i.e. http://now.nic.in/Acts-and-ruies/national-commission-women-act-1990- act- no-20-1990-govtof-india vi. Further, it is fact that the RTI Application dt. 04.02.2020 and 1st Appeal dt. 13.03.2020 have not been received in the Commission from RTI applicant as well as CP10, MWCD, New Delhi..."
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant denied the receipt of the averred written submissions and in response to which the CPIOs at the behest of the Commission agreed to resend a copy of the same to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for interpretation and deduction by the CPIO, yet the CPIO has provided a very detailed clarification to him now through his written submissions. Now, the insistence of the Appellant during the hearing asking the CPIO to respond in Yes or No terms as sought in the RTI Application is rather untenable as the CPIO has 4 acted in the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and cannot be compelled to offer any further opinion or comments in the matter.
The Appellant may note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions, inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to the penal provisions of the RTI Act. It will be relevant here to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of further relief in the matter.
However, considering the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to share a complete copy of his written submission(s) dated 05.01.2022, free of cost with the Appellant through speed post and also via email. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6