Central Information Commission
Rachhpal Singh Saini vs Aiims, Rishikesh on 5 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIMRS/A/2024/602066
Shri Rachhpal Singh Saini ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2024
Date of Decision : 02.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.10.2023
PIO replied on : 28.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 29.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 11.01.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 15.01.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I am seeking comprehensive information regarding the procurement and distribution of medicines at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, from its inception to the current date. Please provide a certified copy of all relevant documents Medicine Procurement:
Please provide a list of all medicines procured by AIIMS Rishikesh from its inception until the present date. Include the following details for each medicine: Generic name Brand name Manufacturer Quantity procured Unit cost Total cost Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information. What are the selection criteria and processes used by AIIMS Rishikesh for identifying and approving new medicines for procurement Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information Page 1 of 5 How does AIIMS Rishikesh ensure the quality and safety of medicines procured, including quality control measures and regulatory compliance Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
- Definition of information.
Provide the procurement policy and guidelines followed by AIIMS Rishikesh for purchasing medicines.
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of Information.
Medicine Distribution:
Describe the procedures and systems in place for the distribution of medicines to various departments, units, and patients within AIIMS Rishikesh. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information.
Explain how AIIMS Rishikesh ensures that patients receive the correct medicines, including verification processes.
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information.
Detail the measures in place to prevent the theft, misuse, or mishandling of medicines within the institution. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information.
Elaborate on the disposal procedures for expired or damaged medicines, including environmental considerations and compliance with waste disposal regulations. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information. Additional Information:
Provide a copy of the comprehensive medicine procurement and distribution policy and any standard operating procedures (SOPs) used by AIIMS Rishikesh. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of Information.
Share reports or documents related to the auditing, monitoring, and evaluation of medicine procurement and distribution practices for the last five years. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information. Include any other information that is deemed relevant to the topic of medicine procurement and distribution at AIIMS Rishikesh.
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Definition of information."
The CPIO, AIIMS, Rishikesh vide letter dated 28.11.2023 replied as under:-
"Medicine Procurement केन्द्रीय फार्मे सी भारतीय जन औषधि पररयोजना (PMBI), भारत सरकार के PSU व् र्मैससस अर्मृ त फार्मे सी के साथ GeM व GFR के अंतर्सत दवाओं को क्रय कर रही है । वषस वार क्रय की र्ई दवाओ का डाटा संलग्न है । भारतीय जन औषधि पररयोजना, भारत सरकार के PSU के रे ट भारत सरकार द्वारा धनधित धकये र्ये हैं , धजन्हें उनकी website से प्राप्त धकया जा सकता है । (डाटा संलग्न है )।
केन्द्रीय फार्मे सी दवाओ की र्ुणवत्ता जानने के धलए बैच ररपोटस साथ र्में प्राप्त करती है । भारतीय जन औषधि पररयोजना, भारत सरकार के PSU की दवाओं का धनर्मास ण WHO GMP धनर्मास ण यूधनट र्में कराया जाता है । संस्थान की अपनी एक evaluation committee भी है , साथ ही संस्थान सर्मय सर्मय पर स्वयं भी जााँ च कराता है ।Page 2 of 5
दवाओ को क्रय करने र्में अखिल भारतीय आयुधवसज्ञान संस्थान ऋधषकेश Manual For Procurement of Goods (Updated June, 2022) व् GFR का अनु सरण करता है :
https://doe.gov.in/sites/default/files/Manual%20for%20Procurement%20of%20Goo ds%20%28Updated %20June%2C%202022%29.pdf Medicine Distribution संस्थान र्में दवाओ की स्टोरे ज व् धवतरण के धलए भारत सरकार के e-hospital का उपयोर् करती है । धजससे सभी वाडस को र्मरीज की UHID के आिार पर दवा धवतरण धकया जाता है । e-hospital सॉफ्टवेयर र्में दवा की िपत र्मरीज की UHID के आिार पर है । धजसर्मे दवा की िपत सॉफ्टवेयर के कई चरणों र्में होती है धजससे दवा के र्लत उपयोर् सम्भव नहीं है ।
दवाओं के धडस्पोजल के धलए संस्थान ने र्मानको के अंतर्सत टें डर धकया है bio medical waste का धनस्तारण उसी के अंतर्सत धकया जाता है ।
र्मां र्ी र्ई National सूचना List of Essential Medicines 2022 र्में उपलब्ध है : https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Notification%20and%20Report%20o n%20National%20List%20of%20Essential%20Medicines%2C%202022 .pdf Additional information सर्मय सर्मय पर होता है ।
संस्थान र्में भारत सरकार के धनयर्मो के अंतर्सत सभी धवभार्ों का संयुक्त ऑधडट."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 11.01.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO reiterating the response sent to the Appellant and adding as under:
1. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has evolved a strange and unwarranted practice of sending repeated emails to strongly follow up his RTI and First Appeals and marking the same to many highly ranked officials of central / State Govts, and AIIMS Rishikesh in addition to Hon'ble Ministers and other non-concerning persons in violation of legal procedure prescribed under RTI Act and rules made therein for filing first and second appeals.
2. Furthermore, the language used in such emails is found to be misleading, motivated, stereotype, unwarranted, stigmatic, intimidating, defamatory with baseless and motivated allegations upon CPIO, AIIMS Rishikesh and other senior officials from time to time. Few such emails are enclosed as Annexure- 'E'. Applicant is not stopping such spamming work in spite of various replies sent to him to restrain from such practice, one of which is enclosed as Annexure- 'F'. It is most humbly submitted that such practice needs to be addressed and discouraged by the esteemed office of Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act New Delhi.
3. Applicant Mr Rachhpal Singh Saini has filed more than 203 RTIs and 144 Appeals before FAA in AIIMS Rishikesh (many of them being repetitive and/or frivolous in nature), it is self-evident that the applicant is misusing the RTI law for some mischievous reasons, best known to him. Needless to mention that on previous occasions, various competent courts have held that disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes Page 3 of 5 their private interest but not the public interest causes substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act.
4. The public authority is compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles.
The Respondent has referred to the following decisions:
1. CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay,
2. Shail Sahni Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors and contended in the submission that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information on the pretext of eradicating corruption etc. proves to be counterproductive and adversely affects efficiency of the administration resulting in executive getting bogged down by the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. It has been contended that RTIs of repeated nature result into abuse of process of law and motivated in addition to be an attempt to intimidate or overwhelm the public authorities. A brief summary of the various information sought by the Appellant as also been stated by the Respondent.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Pradeep Chandra Pandey - Law Officer/CPIO was present during hearing.
The Respondent placed reliance on the aforementioned written submissions and reiterated his contentions about having supplied all available information to the Appellant, as and when sought by the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.
Decision Perusal of records reveals that information held by the public authority has been duly disseminated to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further action is warranted in this regard.
In so far as the RTI application is concerned, the Commission cannot help but notice that the Appellant has almost tried to conduct a performance audit of the public authority, viz. the AIIMS, Rishikesh. The sheer volume of information sought and the repetitive nature of queries obviously is burdening of the public authority, who cannot be deployed to only respond to such a litany of questions, neglecting the primary duty to cater to public health. As has been rightly pointed out by the Respondent, the Courts have on various instances remarked that the right to information is a cherished and formidable tool in the hands of a sensitive citizenry and this tool is meant to be used diligently. Though the legislation has not manifestly restricted the scope of usage of the Right to seek Information, but the same is inherent and the right to information cannot be treated as an unfettered right.
The expression "practical regime" mentioned in the preamble of this welfare legislation cannot be overlooked and must act as a guiding light while reckoning the extent of right to secure access to information. Any right cannot be unbounded or aimless nor can any right be enjoyed without observing the duty and responsibility that comes with it. A right cannot be enforced to such an extent that the underlying objective behind its parent statute gets defeated. A right ought to be exercised with responsibility. Reckless exercise of the right will defeat the purpose of the statute bestowing that right upon the individual. Thus the act of lodging RTI applications en bloc by the Appellant is not in Page 4 of 5 consonance with the object of the statute. On this aspect, it is pertinent to place reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. [2011(8) SCC 497] in the following words:
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. ... 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 furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
On similar lines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made certain observations while deciding the case of Inst. Of Chartered Accountants Of India vs Shaunak H Satya & Ors on 2 September, 2011, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
26.... The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
Thus the Appellant is discouraged from filing series of RTI applications and flooding the CPIOs with such repetitive queries since it is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act and in fact quite contrary to the very purpose of bringing about transparency and awareness. A single information seeker cannot usurp a collective right to the peril of all others having identical right nor a person be allowed to file indiscriminate and unchecked cases to clog the system of adjudication itself to the detriment of others.
Since appropriate response had been furnished by the Respondent and the Appellant has chosen not to participate in the hearing, no further intervention is warranted in this case. The appeal is disposed of as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)