Central Information Commission
Sv Deshpande vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 15 December, 2021
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/DHEDU/A/2019/644659 &
CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/640225
S.V Deshpande ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education, RTI
Cell, (Policy Norms-I Section), Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/12/2021
Date of Decision : 14/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The instant Appeal(s) have been clubbed together for decision as these
are based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 21/02/2019
First appeal filed on : 16/03/2019 & 20/03/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 10/04/2019
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/07/2019 & 09/05/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.02.2019 seeking the information following;
1. Please inform me, if NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) and CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) are the Instrumentalities or the Agencies of the MHRD as per President Order clarification (O.M. No. I/14013/09/99-OL (P-1) dated 9.12.1999); or Not. (Please refer section D)
2. Please inform me, if NCERT was an *academic authority* for preparing the national elementary education curriculum (i.e. for class I to VIII) in 2005;
as declared by the MHRD on 31 March 2010 (published in Indian gazette 5 April 2010) and supported by the Judiciary, or Not. (Please refer section A)
3. Please inform me, if the elementary education curriculum approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005 for the classes I to VIII, is mandatory or compulsory for the educational institutions/boards who have/had accepted this curriculum, or Not. (Please refer section B, C)
4. Please inform me, if various state boards, state governments/UTs, can change or modify the elementary education curriculum approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005 for the classes I to VIII; or Not. (Please refer section B, C)
5. Please inform me, if various educational boards or organisations, can change or modify the elementary education curriculum approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005 for the classes I to VIII; or Not. (Please refer section B, C)
6. Please inform me, regarding the logic or reasons w.r.t. policy, administrative or quasi-judicial decisions taken, for the inclusion of only four languages i.e. Sanskrit, English, Hindi and Urdu in the curriculum; while approving the elementary education curriculum (for the classes I to VIII) in 2005 by MHRD and CABE, violating the fundamental rights of millions of Indian kids coming under the articles 12, 13,14,19,21 and 29. (Please refer section C, F, G and RTI act section 4(c) & (d))
7. Please inform me, regarding the logic or reasons w.r.t. policy, administrative or quasi-judicial decisions taken, for the exclusion of many major Indian languages (for ex. Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, etc.) from the elementary education curriculum (class I to VIII) approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005; violating the fundamental rights of millions of Indian kids coming under the articles 12, 13,14,19,21 and 29. (Please refer section C, F, G and RTI act section 4(c) & (d)) 2
8. Please give me a PDF or scan copies of MHRD and CABE advisory or circulars, sent to NCERT while approving the elementary education curriculum in 2005, for Sanskrit, English, Hindi and Urdu only, and to exclude many major Indian languages (for ex. Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, etc.) from the curriculum, violating the fundamental rights of millions of Indian kids coming under the articles 12, 13,14,19,21 and 29. (Please refer section A, C and E)
9. Please let me know, if MHRD and CABE is/are going to restructure the elementary education curriculum ( class I to VIII ) approved in 2005; to teach state languages compulsorily from class I to X, from the coming academic session 2019 onwards, as per the state language Bills of various states i.e. Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Telangana, etc; or Not. (Please refer section E)
10. Please give me a PDF or scan copy of MHRD circulars send to all relevant educational bodies like NCERT, CBSE, KVC etc. asking them to restructure the elementary education curriculum ( class I to VIII ), approved by the MHRD and CABE in 2005, to teach state languages compulsorily from class I to X, from the coming academic session 2019 onwards, in consultation with the state governments, (those who have/had enacted the compulsory state language learning acts) to fulfill the court dictums as per the orders/directives of Supreme Court and Madras HC, OR as per the language laws enacted by different states; if Any. (Please refer section E)
11. Please let me know the reasons; behind policy, administrative or quasi- judicial decisions, w.r.t. inability or unwillingness of MHRD, to send circulars to all relevant educational bodies like NCERT, CBSE, KVC, etc. asking them to restructure the elementary education curriculum ( class I to VIII) approved by the MHRD and CABE in 2005; in consultation with the state governments those who have/had enacted the compulsory state language learning acts, to fulfill the court dictums, as per the orders/directives of Supreme Court and Madras HC, OR as per the language laws enacted by different states; if Any. (Please refer section E)
12. Please inform me; the reasons or logic behind the policy, administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to have Hindi language compulsory from class I to VIII in the elementary education curriculum approved by the MHRD and CABE in 2005, though this decision is in contravention with the fundamental rights coming under the articles 12, 14, 21 and 29 of non-Hindi Indian kids.
13. Please inform me; if MHRD and CABE is/are going to restructure the elementary education curriculum/syllabus approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005, to teach different mother tongues or state languages compulsorily 3 from class I to VIII from 2019 onwards; or Not. (Please refer section B, C, E and F)
14. Please let me know the reasons behind the policy, administrative or quasi-judicial decisions, for the exclusion of other major languages of Indian union from the medium of instructions in the elementary education curriculum (approved by MHRD and CABE in 2005), and having the medium of instructions for the elementary education syllabus, in Hindi and English only. (Please refer section B, C, E and F)
15. Please inform me, regarding the data of floating population collected by the MHRD and CABE, while approving the elementary education curriculum in 2005; please provide PDF or scan copies of data sheets. (Please refer section C) {Floating population means, parents having transferable jobs}
16. Please inform me the logic or reasons behind the policy, administrative or quasi-judicial decisions of both, KVC (kendriya vidyalaya) and CBSE (central board of secondary education) controlled by MHRD, for having one of the identical objectives as- to cater the needs of the kids *having parents with transferable jobs.* (Please refer section C and G)
17. Please give me; PDF or scan copy of the letter written by MHRD on 21/07/2005 to NCERT. {Shri Arjun Singh referred to the mandate given to NCERT through the letter dated 21.7.2005 written by the Ministry Human Resources Development- Reference taken from 54th CBSE meeting}
18. Please inform me, if *Pan-India common uniform syllabus* was the sole Criteria taken as base by, MHRD and CABE, while approving the elementary education curriculum (class I to VIII) in Oct 2005; or Not.
The CPIO, Policy Norms-I Section furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 21.02.2019 stated as follows:-
Point Nos. 1, 2, 16 & 17:- Not pertained to CABE.
Point Nos. 3, 4 & 5:- The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) is the highest advisory body consisting of the Central and State Governments, educationists and people representing different interests to evolve a participative process of decision making in education after widespread consultation and examination of issues relating to educational and cultural development, particularly in view of the significant socio-economic and socio-cultural developments taking place in the country as also the wide ranging reforms taking place in the education sector. Since, Education is on the Concurrent List of the Constitution as such, States/UTs -4
nay decide the course of actions to be taken in their respective States/UTs as per their requirements and availability of resources.
Point Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12 & 14:- No reason or justification can be provided as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
Point Nos. 8, 9, 18 10, 13, 15 & 18:- In so far as CABE is concerned, no such documents/ information is available in the Policy Norm-I Section.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2019. FAA's order dated 10.04.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO and also stated that "PIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information is required to be supplied which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority under RTI Act 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Keshav Madhav Sharma, Section Officer & Rep. of CPIO; Khamnagaih Lun, US & CPIO (MHRD) along with Dr. Suniti Sanwal, Professor & Head DEE & CPIO and Dr. Sandhya Singh, Professor & Head, DEL & CPIO (NCERT) present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information was denied to him and all of it concerns larger public interest.
The Commission remarked at the very outset that the information sought for by the Appellant is not in conformity with Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for clarifications and explanations based on extensive speculative queries questioning policy matters of NCERT.5
Decision:
In furtherance of the observations made during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 as the Appellant has prefixed the RTI queries with a detailed narrative running into several pages. As it appears it would be rather unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher reasons/logic/justifications for policy matters.
The Appellant shall note that 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.
In this regard, his attention is 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, 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) Furthermore, the Commission observes that the issues raised by the Appellant in the grounds of the Second Appeal questioning the policy matters are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.6
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in a 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." Emphasis Supplied In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the CPIO's reply.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) 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 / 7