Central Information Commission
Mr.M S Saikumar vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 29 July, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001673
Dated: 29.07.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri M.S. Saikumar
Name of Respondent : Office of the District Collector & Election
Officer, Puducherry.
ORDER
Shri M.S. Saikumar, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 16.8.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Office of the District Collector and Election Officer, Puducherry for denial of information in response to his RTI- request dated 6.5.2011. The matter was first heard on 27.9.2012. The Commission vide its Interim Order of even number dated 22.05.2013 held as follows: "The respondent have submitted that the information sought by the appellant is the proprietary item the Election Commission of India and is also within the exclusive domain of the Election Commission of India. This being so, the Election Commission of India has also to be heard in the matter". The matter was scheduled for hearing on 08.07.2013, which was attended by Shri Jaydev Lahiri, Under Secretary/CPIO, Election Commission of India.
Background:
2. "The appellant filed an RTI application dated 6.5.2011 in which he requested information on two queries (1) Copies of the C. D's recorded by the Election Commission at Yaman during the entire period of Election Code; and (2) 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001673 Copies of the C. D's recorded in all Polling booths of Yanam Constituency on the day of polling from 3.30 pm to 5.00 p.m. The PIO vide letter No. 13/ROY/30-
YAC/2011 dated 20.5.2011 replied to the appellant as follows: "The recordings of various events during the entire period of election code and the poll process in all Polling Stations by means of Web Camera are proprietary item of Election Commission of India and are kept in safe custody under seal. Therefore, the recordings were held in confidence and are exempted under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding the above, divulging the video recordings will reveal the images of all persons who cast vote and lead to a situation of invasion of privacy. With no larger public interest, brought out by the appellant, as per Section 8(g) of the RTI Act, it was hardly possible to furnish the video recordings that also poses eventuality of causing hazards to the physical safety and peace of the individual".
2.1. Aggrieved with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 13.6.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. F.A.54/2011/RTI dated 15.7.2011 concurred with the reply of the PIO.
2.2. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant submits that rejection order passed u/s 8(1) (e) and (g) of the RTI Act by both the PIO and FAA are against the RTI Act, since his request does not fall under the fiduciary relationship and it will not cause hazards to the physical safety of individuals. The request has public interest since a number of persons impersonated as voters and cast their votes against the Election laws. Many Government employees participated in favour of a candidate and candidates made defamatory speeches against other candidates. The entire Election process if also over, therefore, disclosure of information under the RTI Act is not exempted.
2.3. During the hearing held on 27.9.2012 the respondent/PIO, Office of the District Collector and Election Officer, Puducherry submited that the information 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001673 sought for by the appellant being related to that of elections which are within the exclusive domain of the Election Commission of India and the instructions laid down by the Election Commission, will have to be scrupulously followed in such cases as per para 16.5.2 stipulated in the Compendium of Instructions, 2011 whereby the applicant apart from making a payment of Rs. 25/- as application fee should clearly establish his right for inspection or for supply of certified copies and for that purpose should clearly disclose that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the video cassette and the nature of such interest. In the absence of purpose and the interest in the information sought for by the appellant, both the order of the PIO and FAA are legally valid and correct".
3. The Commission vide its Interim Order decided to hear the Election Commission of India.
4. During the hearing on 08.07.2013, the CPIO, Election Commission of India, New Delhi submits that in order to enable the Election Commission to have a true, faithful and concurrent record of the violations of the election law and the standing instructions of the Election Commission and to assess the impact of its corrective measures, the Returning Officer of each constituency shall make arrangements to record through Videography of critical events during the process of electioneering, including but not restricted to the period of public campaign, the day of poll, the transport and receipt of polled ballot boxes and other materials, counting of votes and the declaration of results in an independent intelligent and purposeful manner. For this purpose, the Returning Officers may make use of video cameras and crew available with the Governmental or semi-Governmental agencies within their jurisdiction or hire local private professional videographers. In this regard the Election Commission has issued necessary instructions, the relevant portion is reproduced as follows:"(a) Certified print of the video cassette shall be given to any person applying for the same on payment of Rs. 25/- as application fee and the actual cost of copying as may be locally applicable. The application should establish the right of the applicant for inspection or for supply 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001673 of certified copies (prints) and for that purpose should clearly disclose that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the videocassette and the nature of such interest, (b) No fee shall be charged when inspection or certified (print) of a cassette is required for official purposes. To avoid removal of any footage of the cassette or damage or mutilation of the cassette, effective supervision by officials shall be ensured and simultaneous inspection by a large number of persons shall not be allowed." In this connection the Election Commission of India vide its letter No. 4/RTI/Appeal/60/2013/333 dated 18.6.2013 have issued necessary instructions to the Chief Electoral Officer, Puducherry to facilitate supply of recordings to the appellant under intimation to the Election Commission, so as to enable it to inform the CIC about the status of the case, with a copy to the appellant.
5. In view of above submissions of the CPIO, Election Commission of India, the Commission hereby directs the respondent to provide requisite information to the appellant, if not already provided within seven days of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001673 Address of the parties:
Shri M.S. Saikumar, Door No. 4-9-054A, Kamichetty Street, Yanam-533464 U.T. of Puducherry The Returning Officer & PIO, 30-Yanam Assembly Constituency, Yanam-533464 U.T. of Puducherry.
The District Election Officer-Collector & FAA, Government of Puducherry, Secretariat, Puducherry-605005.
Copy for information to:
The CPIO, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.