Central Information Commission
Sangram Muralidhar Patil vs National Archives Of India on 20 June, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NAIND/A/2021/119935-UM
Mr. Sangram Muralidhar Patil
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Assistant Director
National Achieves OF India
Janpath, New Delhi 110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.06.2022
Date of Decision : 20.06.2022
Date of RTI application 21.12.2020
CPIO's response 18.02.2021
Date of the First Appeal 08.03.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 26.03.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.05.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding land settlement record of the year 1869 of Nasik.
The CPIO vide letter dated 18.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 26.03.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant and dispose off the First Appeal.
Page 1 of 3Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sangram Muralidhar Patil participated through AC, Respondent: Ms. Kalpana Shukla, CPIO, present in person.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding the land settlement records of some villages in Nashik of the year 1869. He further stated that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He said the CPIO is making mockery of the RTI act 2005 by in funding in only a formality and giving misleading information. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 18.02.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. She further stated that the department needs clarification on the information sought as the information required by the Appellant is very comprehensive and lacks details of particulars like the ministry/branch/department/category/file. She said they get get correct and precise clarifications from the Appellant they would certainly provide the information as per the availability. When queried, she submitted that the information sought in the RTI is in relation to the archival material which comes under the ambit of the Public Records Act, 1993 & the Public Record Rules, 1997 whose main objective is to conserve and preserve the documents in the interest of their longevity. She said that the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, is to ensure transparency and accountability and the records under the authority of the National Archives of India are available for study and research only either through their reading room or through their online state portal. She said one of the main responsibilities of NAI is to conserve records held in its care but photocopying the documents for RTI leads to deterioration of documents in terms of their longevity. Hence, she said essentially the copying of such precious records should be minimized. She further said, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in Civil Appeal No. 1966- 1967/2020, CIC v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. which relied on the general law made by the parliament the avowed objective of dissemination of information as per the RTI act was ensuring transparency in the functioning of the Public Authorities. The Court also clarified, she said, that Section 22 of the RTI Act does not contemplate overriding those legislations which also aim to ensure access to information. She stated that an RTI applicant sort can resort to the provisions of the RTI Act but it should not lead to duplication or multiplication of the modes of accessing information. She said that the National Archival Records are maintained under the Public Records Act, 1993 and Public Record Rules, 1997 for the longevity of the documentary heritage of the country to preclude wastage of public resources and to prevent the abuse of the system of access to public records. Further, she prayed that the Public Records Act was enacted before the RTI Act, and hence, the Archival Records should be requested through the Public Records Act and they are ready to provide information under the same. She submitted that it is only if they refuse to provide the records under the Act and rules they are governed that a citizen can take the path of the RTI Act to seek those records.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Appellant dated 31.05.2022 which is taken on record.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission agreed with the Respondent's submissions. Therefore, the Commission observes that the National Archival Records are maintained under the Public Records Act, 1993 and Public Record Rules, 1997. The motive of the legislation is to promote smooth functioning in the administration and not to bring into clash various rules of different acts. Further, both the RTI & Public Records Acts are mutually exclusive and do not challenge the legislative intent. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to seek clarification from the Appellant regarding the specific information required within 5 days of the receipt of this order and further wait for 20 days for his reply. If he gives the reply then the Respondent can share the said information with the Appellant as per the Public Records Act, 1993 & Public Record Rules, 1997, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of his response under the intimation to the Commission. If he does not give the specifications in the time frame given then there is no further intervention of the Commission required.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 20.06.2022 Page 3 of 3