Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Veterinary Council Of India on 27 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
Central Information Commission
,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/VCOIN/C/2022/605867
Naresh Kadyan .... /Complainant
VERSUS
CPIO,
Veterinary Council of India, RTI Cell,
A Wing, Second Floor, August Kranti
Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066. ... /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023
Date of Decision : 14/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 13/01/2022
Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:1
"Indian Veterinary Council, to explain, whether animal is a goods, instead living creatures, who has feeling on pain, abuse and sufferings with 5 freedoms, why discrimination and selective activism, double standards, breach of public trust, how can registered practitioners with Indian Veterinary Council, perform their fundamental duties, as defined under article 51 A(g) of the Constitution ? Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, fighting hard for animals, restoring their 5 freedoms, but adopted mechanism of Indian Government, have contradiction and discriminations: Supreme Court order, dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, also confirmed, as per section 54: Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of 01E, recognizes five freedoms for animals, internationally, such as: (i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition. (ii) freedom from fear and distress.
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort. (iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease and (v) freedom to express normal patterns of Behaviour, read with the section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960 and article 51 A(g) of Indian Constitution.
1. Copies of all replies - clarify as above with the definition of animals, cattle and goods.
2. Status with Disposal of all PG Portal, related to 5 freedoms for animals, including DOARE/E/2021/01402
3. Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 2(21), defined goods includes animals.
4. Delhi Police Act, 1978: Section 2(b) defined cattle includes elephants.
5. New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994: Section 2(16) defined goods includes animals.
6. Animals is a goods then complete list of freedoms of these animals, as attached.
7. Registered practitioners, breached oaths, as sworn under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
8. Definition of animals, goods and cattle, as per Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
9. Complete details with copies of disposal, related to PG Portal:
DOAHD/E/2021/00769: DLGLA-E-2018-00769, DLGLA-E-2018-01317 and MOEAF-2
E-2018-01415 as BCI issued circular 4 of 2015, under pressure, because Animal Laws of India, bearing repealed Delhi Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Rules, 1961 under section 15 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, which is replaced by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 13.12.2021 stating as under:
"1. CPIO is not supposed to give clarification under RTI Act, 2005.
2. Not related to Veterinary Council of India as present VCI is not regulating post graduate veterinary education.
3, 4, 5 & 6.
Not related to Veterinary Council of India
7. CPIO is not supposed to solve the problem of the applicant under RTI Act, 2005. However, a copy of the declaration and oath by a veterinarian is enclosed.
8. As per IVC Act, 1984 no definition of Animals, goods and cattle is prescribed in the said Act.
9. Not related to Veterinary Council of India."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 15.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 13.01.2022, held as under:
"After going through the Appeal, it has been observed that the Appellant in his RTI Application has raised questions like "Why". As per decision dated 03.4.2008 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission has held that "The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Balbir Singh, S.O. & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
A written submission filed by the Complainant prior to hearing has been taken on record. To a query from the Commission regarding specific briefing of the instant case, the Complainant vehemently contested the factum of alleged cruelties of cattle/animals committed by the Society for which he tried to fight multiple battles and also flagged the issue as mentioned in query no. 9 of his RTI Application for which he contested the fact that his RTI Application has not been transferred by the CPIO to the concerned CPIO of Bar Council of India by invoking Section 6(3) of RTI Act. In this regard, he sought penal action to be initiated against the CPIO.
In response to Complainant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their written submission dated 05.06.2023 (copy marked to the Complainant) wherein the FAA inter alia has stated as under -
"....(i) The appellant asked the information under Point No. 1 of his RTI Application dated 15/11/2021 to "clarify with the definition of animals, cattle and goods". As the Animals. Cattle and Goods are not defined under the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act. 1984, Hence. the CPIO of this Council informed to the Applicant that "CPIO is not supposed to give clarification under RTI Act. 2005" As the information sought is in nature of explanation and asked question in terms of "Why".
Further, in this regards, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa vide its order dated 03/04/2008 in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 in the case of Dr Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission observed as under. -
"The definition of information can not include within its fold answer to the question "Why" which would be same thing as asking the reasons for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reasons why a certain thing was done or 4 not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." In view of the above, the CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
(ii) That the information sought vide Point 2 to 6 & 9 vide his RTI Application referred to above are not related to this Council as the same are fall under the purview of the other organizations/Acts such as Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
1957 which is under Control of Delhi Government
(iii) That the information sought vide point No. 7 is related to breach of oath by registered veterinarians, the information sought is vague as the applicant has not specified the name of any veterinary practitioner who breached the oath.
(iv) That the information sought vide point No. 8 is related to definition of animals, goods and cattle as per Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. It was informed by CPIO that no definition of animals. goods and cattle is prescribed in the existing Indian Veterinary Council Act. 1984
2. Further, First Appellate Authority in response his Appeal dated 15/12/2021 vide his Order dated 13/01/2022 passed an Order and order was sent to the Appellant through Speed A copy of Order dated 13/01/2022 of the First Appellate Authority is enclosed at Annexure --III 3. Further, it is relevant to mention here that the Section 66 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 provides that .-
(1) the Council may. with the previous approval of the Central Government. make regulations. not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made under section 64. to carry out the purposes of Chapters II. III. IV and V (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters. namely:-
(a) the manner in which the President and Vice-President shall be elected under sub-section (4) of section3:
(b) the procedure to be observed respectively by the Council and the Committee at their meeting under sub-section (6) of section 9 and sub-section (2) of section 12;5
(c) the terms and conditions of appointment of the Secretary, other (c) the terms and conditions of appointment of the Secretary. other officers and employees of the Council under sub-section (2) of section 11:
(d) the fees and allowances for attending the meetings of the Council and the Committees under section-13.
(e) the form and manner in which the Indian Veterinary practitioners register shall be maintained under sub-section (1) of section 23:
(f) the manner of keeping the Indian Veterinary practitioners register under sub-
section (2) of the section 23:
(g) the form and manner in which an application may be made under section 24:
(Section 24 is related to registration of Veterinary practitioners)
(h) the form of application and the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 25:
(Registration of Veterinary practitioners)
(i) the form of certificate of registration under sub-section (2) of section 25:
(j) the fee payable under sub-section (3) of section 25,
(k) the form of duplicate certificate under sub-section (3) of section 25;
(l) the form and manner in which an application may be made and the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 26:
(m) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by veterinary practitioners under sub-section (1) of Section 31;
(n) any other matter for which under this Act provisions may be made by regulations."
Decision At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s)/ Appeals bearing File no. CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 & others of the same Complainant against different public authorities have already been 6 heard and disposed of by this bench on 07.11.2022, 27.12.2022, 18.01.2023 and 06.02.2023. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the nature of queries or in other words I can say the statements he made to ask for clarifications from the CPIO merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay 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 7 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 prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application in question is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Complainant are vague and in determinate which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se. In this regard, the Complainant shall note that the 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 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;.."
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, 8 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
9"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIOs for the want of malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading 10 information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."11
Having observed as above,no further action is warranted in the instant matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
( ! " )
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
. #. $ %,&"-"$
/ Date
12