Central Information Commission
Amit Bhargava vs State Bank Of India on 9 August, 2023
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/SBIND/A/2022/633451
Amit Bhargava ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank of India, RBO-4
AO- South and East Delhi, 4th
Floor, Delhi Administrative
Office Building,11, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/08/2023
Date of Decision : 08/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 15/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 17/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 16/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Kindly provide the information and certified copy of documents / records sought u/s 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 withal 48 hours. The information sought be provided in tabular format. Copy of the Documents / Records sought be mandatory certified as required u/s 2(j)(ii) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.
The information is sought within 48 hours as the SBI IIT Hauz Khas branch staff criminally conspired and physically assaulted me in a pre-planned attack and wrongfully confined me in the branch on 05.12.2019 and attempted to attack me again on 08.11.2021. All information sought has a direct correlation on the physical assault on me & subsequent criminal intimidation. As such there is a considerable threat to my and my family's life and liberty and the information sought is required to be provided within 48 hours.
I. Provide complete CCTV recording from al CCTV cameras of all areas accessible to public in and outside the State Bank of India. Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code: 01077) as detailed below:
a. From 1530 hours to 1730 hours of 05.12.2018 b. From 1400 hours to 1730 hours of 22.10.2021 c. From 1400 hours to 1730 hours of 28.10.2021 d. From 1500 hours to 1800 hours of 00.11.2021 e. From 1530 hours to 1830 hours of 08.11.2021 f. Any other CCTV footage in possession of the public authority (State Bank of India) of the visit to State Bank of India. Indian Institute of Technology. Hauz Khas. New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code: 01077) of Mr. Amit Bhargava. and/or Late Mr. Sameshwar Prasad Bhargava. and/or Mrs. Shiv Rani Bhargava. and/or Mr. Ajay Bhargava.
xxx xxx xxx
2. Provide Certified True Copy of the Suo-Moto Disclosure as required u/s 4(1).(b) of the Right to Information Act. 2035 for the period 1.1.2019 and date of State Bank of India. Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110018 (Branch code: 01077).
3. Provide Certified True Copy of the Staff Attendance Register of State Bank of India, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code:
01077) of 4.7.2019, 5.12.2019, 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 06.11.2021, & 08.11.2021.2
4. Provide details and name of the staff of State Bank of India, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code: 01077) along with their counters numbers and duties assigned on 24.04.2019, 04.07.2019, 05.12.2019, 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 06.11.2021, & 08.11.2021.
5. Provide Details and Certified true copies of the following:
a. Complaint if any, received by the Public Authority from its staff or member of the public against the Appellant (Mr. Amit Bhargava).
b. Complaint if any, made by the Public Authority, and/or its staff and/or member of the public against the Appellant (Mr. Amit Bhargava).
C. Complaint if any, made by the Public Authority and/or its staff. against the Appellant (Mr. Amit Bhargava) to Delhi Police.
6. Any other relevant information.
7. File notings on every aspect of this RTI petition and on movement of this RTI petition..."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 15.02.2022 stating as under:
"1. CCTV recording is not available with the Branch.
2. Suo-moto disclosure as required u/s 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is available at SBI website (https://bank.sbi).
3. Copy of staff attendance register of IIT Hauz Khas Branch, SBI enclosed for 04.07.2019, 05.12.2019, 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 06.11.202 1 and 08.11.2021.
4. The information sought is exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
5. (a) No such complaint received by the public authority from its staff members against the appellant Sh. Amit Bhargava.
(b) Please refer to point 5(a) 3
(c) Complaint made by IIT Hauz Khas branch against the appellant Sh. Amit Bhargava to Delhi Police on 08.11.2021 and 02.12.2021. Copy of complaint is enclosed herewith.
6. The information sought is in the form of clarification which does not fall under the definition of "information" as per Section 2 (f) of RTI Act.
7. RTI application was received by the branch vide email dated 05.02.2022."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2022. FAA's order dated 16.03.2022, held as under:
"1. For query no. 1, sought in the appeal regarding CCTV Footage the CPIO has replied that me same is not available in the records. Further, with reference to the judgement of CIC issued vide CICISBIND/A/2020/6662318 and CIC/SBIND/N2020/666174 received 15.03.2022 passed in respect of the current appellant only, CIC has already decided as follows: The Commission. after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought CCTV footage of the bank's branch premises, enquiry report, action taken on his complaint and other related issues thereto. The Commission further observes that with regards to the furnishing of CCTV footage to the appellant, the decisions relied upon by the appellant enables an appellant to acquire the restricted footage of the appellant alone. However, the appellant in the above cases has sought the complete footage sharing of which will expose me complete framework of surveillance system of the respondent which was placed to protect the security. Furnishing such sensitive CCTV footage to the public at large other than law enforcing agencies can be misused in penetrating or avoiding the surveillance system.
Keeping in view the same, the Commission is of the opinion that the CCTV footage of a financial institution is sensitive in nature and disclosure of which to public would harm the commercial position of the bank and may also endanger the life and physical safety of the officers' customers and hence is barred under section 8(1)(d) & (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 respectively.
Keeping in view the Judgements passed by CIC, the CCTV footage even if available may not be provided.4
2. For query no. 2, proper reply has already been provided to the appellant.
3. For query no. 3, the CPIO has already provided the information. However, a legible copy of the register may again be provided to the appellant.
4. For query no. 4, proper reply may be provided to the appellant.
5. For query no. 5, the CPIO has already provided the information. However, a copy of the complaints filed against the appellant may again be provided to the appellant.
6. For query no. 6, no information has been asked.
7. For query no. 7, no information has been asked. Details of receipt of RTI application has already been provided by the CPIO."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Vinod Kumar Sharma, Asst. General Manager & CPIO present in person.
The Appellant narrated in detail that the genesis of instant case is the alleged physical assault committed twice by the staff of SBI officials, Hauz Khas Branch , New Delhi upon him, on his noticing the factum of corrupt practises adopted by SBI allied officers during demonetization period. In support of his arguments, the Appellant also invited attention of the bench towards the contents of his instant Appeal relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...7. Respondent no. I disposed the RTI Application on 21.02.2022 after 35 days vide back dated reply dated 15.02.2022 during the pendency of the First Appeal without disclosing the name of the First Appellate Authority and malafidely denied the information sought. Reply dated 15.02.2022 of Respondent no. 1 is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure R-2", and the proof of delayed disposal of RTI application on 21.02.2022 is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure R-3".5
xxx
13.In response to Query at SL. No. 1, the Respondent no. I malafidely & falsely stated that the CCTV recording is not available salt the branch but failed to explain why & how. Respondent no. 2 has malafidely upheld the decision of Respondent no. 1 citing an impugned order that has no relevance in this case. The Respondents have not disclosed any policy pertaining to storage of CCTV footage.
It is worthy to note that in various Appeals before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, The State Bank of India has held that the CCTV recordings are stored for a minimum period of 90 days. In fact in Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002125 before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, the Respondent CPIO of State Bank of India has submitted that SBI, Chandigarh Circle had decided to preserve the CCTV footage for 180 days vide circular No. CIR DO/Security 03/2012-13 dated 23.10.2012 and a copy of the same had been provided to the appellant In the present case the CPIO has failed to establish how CCTV footage of a period of even less than 90 days on the date of filing of the RTI application is not available with the branch.
It is also worthy to note that the Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide its decision No. CIC/SA/C/ 2013/000013 dated 09.10.2014 in Ashok Kr. Dixit v/s Delhi Technological University, GNCTD, Delhi has held that...
'Record cannot be dewroved after RTI application is filed even if it outlived the lime prescribed under weeding out policy. and if destroyed like that it would invite the penalty under Section 20 of R77 Act."
Thus CCTV footage of period even beyond 90 days sought through query no. 1(a) also cannot be destroyed or denied as the same Was sought through an earlier RTI application dated 6.122019 and that matter has not yet reached its finality.
It is pertinent to note that Appellant through the present RTI application has sought footage of the date and time he was present in the bank.
It is worthy to note that a physical assault on the Appellant was criminally conspired and carried on 5.12.2019 out on the direction of Mr. Kunal Deo, AGM, SBI, Hauz Khas branch and the same is captured in the CCTV footage. Similarly, the Appellant was harassed by the stall of the branch on 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, & 6.11.2021. If this was not enough another attempt was made to attack the Appellant on 8.11.2021 by the Chief Manager of the Branch Mr. Dharam Singh Rathore in alleged active collusion with the Respondent CPIO Mr. Jitendra Singh on whose directions the Appellant had visited the branch.
6Even if this was not enough, the staff of the branch has made fake and frivolous complaint to the Police against the Appellant which will stand exposed through CCTV footage. Thus CPIO has malafidely denied the information sought to cover up his wrongdoings, and of his colleagues.
As such public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. For this purpose Section 8(2) of The Right to Information Act is reproduced below as a ready reckoner-
xxx xxx xxx The decision of the Hon'ble CIC wherein it has ordered disclosure of CCTV footage is in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000153 vide order dated 02.12.2014 in the matter of Ms. Reena Richard v/s State Bank of India, Mumbai has a direct correlation to the present matter, and is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure F-3 Attention is drawn to various orders of the Central Information Commission in which CCTV recordings have been provided to the Appellants by the Public Authority. These orders have been enclosed with the First Appeal already and annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure F-3 to Annexure F-7"
14.In response to query at Serial No. 2, the Respondent has provided an evasive & malafide reply and stated that Suo-Moto Disclosures as required u/s 4(1)(b) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 is available at SBI website (https://bank.sbi). Respondent no. 2 has upheld the reply of the Respondent no. 1.
The fact of the matter on the contrary is that the CPIO has not provided query specific reply nor has provided query specific URL. All that he has malafidely provided is the website address of the State Bank of India where certified, or digitally certified True Copy of the Suo-Moto Disclosure as required u/s 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the period 1.1.2019 until date of State Bank of India, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code: 01077) is not available.
15.In response to query at Serial No. 3, the Respondent vide his reply dated 15.02.2022 had falsely stated to have enclosed staff attendance register of IIT Hauz Khas Branch for 4.7.2019, 5.12.0219, 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 06.11.2021, & 8.11.2021. Respondent no. 2 has ordered that a legible copy of the Register may again be provided to the Appellant.
The fact of the matter is that the Respondent CPIO vide his reply dated 15.02.2022 had provided incomplete and truncated illegible copy of staff attendance register of IIT Hauz Khas Branch from which nothing can be made out who was present and who was not.7
Vide his second reply dated 30.03.2022, the Respondent no. 1 has again provided incomplete and truncated copy of staff attendance register of IIT Hauz Khas Branch. The Respondent CPIO had concealed the information without specifying under which section of the RTI Act, 2005 it can be concealed nor provided any reason for its concealment.
It is submitted that no information can be denied or concealed in respect to query at Serial No. 3.
16.In response to query at Serial No. 4, the Respondent no. 1 has malafidely had denied the information sought u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act without specifying how disclosure of the information sought will would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. Respondent no. 2 had ordered that a proper reply be provided to the Appellant.
Respondent no. 1 after malafidely claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act vide his reply dated 15.02.2022 has now vide his reply dated 30.03.2022 has malafidely claimed that "no such record is available with the branch regarding counter numbers and duties assigned.
The fact of the matter is that details and name of the staff of State Bank of India, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 (Branch code: 01077) along with their counters numbers and duties assigned on 24.04.2019, 04.07.2019, 05.12.2019, 22.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 06.11.2021, & 08.11.2021 would prove gross dereliction of duties by officials of the bank who do not display their names. It is also worthy to note that the staff of the branch also reply to the emails without disclosing their names to evade accountability.
Public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests u/s 8(2) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 and the information sought cannot be concealed.
17.In response to query at Serial No. 5, the respondent has malafidely enclosed only 3 false and frivolous uncertified and truncated complaints made to the Police against the Appellant by (i) Mr. Anirudh Garg, (ii) Ms. Manali & Ms. Aruna Vijay, &
(iii) Chief Manager, SBI, IIT Branch, New Delhi. Respondent no. 2 has malafidely upheld the decision of the Respondent no. 1 and simply asked his to again provide the copy of the same.8
The Respondents are required to provide certified copied of the information sought as required u/s 2(j)(ii) of the RTI, Act. Further, the copies should be legible and complete.
The Appellant further submits that he has been informed that there are more than these 3 complaints made against him. U/s 19(5) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 in any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request and the Respondent CPIO is required to furnish an affidavit stating that the information provided is complete and fully disclosed.
18.In response to query at Serial No. 6, the respondent CPIO has falsely stated that the information sought is in form of clarification which does not fall under the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Respondent no. 2 has malafidely stated that no information has been asked.
It is submitted that the information sought is not a clarification but "information" defined as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The Respondent CPIO is required to furnish any other relevant information pertaining to the queries in the RTI application or state on a affidavit that no other information exists.
19.In response to query at Serial No. 7, the respondent CPIO has falsely stated that the RTI Application was received by the branch vide email dated 05.02.2022 and has not provided any File notings on every aspect of the RTI petition and on movement of the RTI petition. The fact of the matter on the contrary is that the Respondent CPIO was in receipt of the RTI Application on 17.01.2022, proof of which is already enclosed with the First Appeal. The Respondent CPIO was reminded by the Appellant by email dated 5.2.2022 that the RTI petition was pending disposal after which the RTI application was malafidely disposed by the Respondent no. 1 on 21.02.2022. Proof in this regard is annexed hereto as "Annexure R-1", "Annexure R-2", & "Annexure R-3".Respondent no. 2 has malafidely held that no information has been asked and details of receipt of RTI application have already been provided by the CPIO.
It is also worthy to note that the order of the Hon'ble CIC under File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/901365, dated 9 July 2012, direct that...
"6. It must be remembered that the transparency demanded under the Right to Information (RTI) Act of all public authorities would also extend to the CPIO, the Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission in equal measure. The 9 records generated by these authorities while dealing with any RTI application or appeal will have to be readily available in the public domain without any hindrance."
That the respondent has not provided the information sought nor transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of The Right to Information Act, 2005..."
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been parted with the Appellant. Further, to a query from the Commission for point no. 1, he explained that CCTV footages as per SOP are auto deleted after a period of 90 days; therefore, such records are not available with them as such and not even in their archives.
Decision:
The Commission upon hearing the submissions of both the parties at length and after scrutiny of records observes that as regards the information sought by the Appellant at points no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 including the CCTV footage, details of SBI officers/ their attendance records along with copy of complaints filed against him is concerned, it contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, as well. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
xxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."10
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13/12/20012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] wherein the Apex Court has held that section 8(1)(g) can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It was further held in para 30 of the decision that:
"Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act."
Further, as far as applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the parties is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public 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 11 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..."
Now, as far as relief sought for at points no. 2, 6, & 7 is concerned, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the FAA as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant in terms of the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope for further relief to be added in the matter.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the alleged physical assault committed against him by SBI officers is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the scope and mandate of RTI Act. Here, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review 12 Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter and reply of the CPIO is upheld.
Nonetheless, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate channel.
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 / 13