Central Information Commission
Jai Singh vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 11 February, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172746-BJ
Mr. Jai Singh
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Indian Council of Medical Research,
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No. 4911
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2019
Date of Decision : 11.02.2019
Date of RTI application 08.05.2017
CPIO's response Not on records
Date of the First Appeal 31.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on records
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the number of departments under ICMR in which the positions of Director, Administrative Officer and Financial Officer were earmarked along with the number of departments wherein appointments for the said positions on Ad-hoc basis were made, etc. Dissatisfied due to the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on records of the Commission. However, the Senior Administrative Officer, ICMR vide its letter dated 14.08.2017, transferred the RTI application to the directors of all the institutes.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Naresh Chand, SO and Ms. Shalu Kapoor, Assistant;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Yaduvir Singh Yadav, Network Engineer NIC studio at Agra confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent explained that the Head Office at ICMR is running 26 affiliated institutes and that the information sought by the Appellant was furnished to him by Scientist "C" at Agra vide his letter dated 29.01.2018. It was noted by the Commission that during the hearing, the SO present was unaware of the details of the case and that necessary explanation was offered by the Assistant only. The Commission noted with concern over the delay in providing information and also non-compliance of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 in placing the information pertaining to vacancies of all categories of employees including compassionate appointments as also the procedure adopted for filling up of such vacancies on its website. The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, Page 2 of 4 public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Page 3 of 4DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission directs the CPIO and the Director General, ICMR to examine the contents of the RTI application and ensure placing of all such details on its website for perusal by all concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 11.02.2019
Copy to:
1. Prof. Balram Bhargava, Director General, ICMR, V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No. 4911, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 Page 4 of 4