Central Information Commission
Karthik Anandakumar vs University Grants Commission on 3 January, 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/UGCOM/A/2017/169839-BJ
Mr. Karthik Anandakumar
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Vice Chancellor, SRM University
(Now SRM Institute of Science & Technology)
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Potheri
SRM Nagar, Katankulathur
Tamil Nadu - 603203
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2019
Date of Decision : 03.01.2019
Date of RTI application 17.06.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 26.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points in respect of Ms. D. Viji, Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, her gross salary income, date of joining in the Respondent Public Authority, details of prior experience before joining SRM University, if any and the details of the First Appellate Authority with address etc. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, are not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:Page 1 of 5
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. Wordsworth Manivannan, CPIO through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Magesh, Network Engineer NIC studio at Chennai confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent acknowledged the receipt of the RTI application and confirmed about the delayed response in February, 2018. On being queried why the time limit provisions as stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005 had not been complied with, no satisfactory reply was offered. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 28.12.2018 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was related to personal information which had no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals as mentioned in Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that the Appellant again sent an RTI Appeal to the UGC on 03.02.2018. The UGC in turn had forwarded the Appeal to the Vice Chancellor on 13.02.2018. The Appellate Authority (Registrar) had replied to the Appeal on 21.02.2018 to the UGC with a copy to the Appellant that the information sought could not be disclosed as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. A reference was drawn to the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001601 dated 11.08.2016 in the case of Shri Anjan Basak, Wardha (Maharashtra) vs. CPIO, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha (Maharashtra) wherein it was held that the information sought was a personal information which was denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act and also that the SRM University by no means could be construed as a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 since it was a Private Unaided Institution. Therefore, based on the above submitted facts, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the appeal/complaint filed by the Appellant.
It was felt that correct and timely response was the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
Page 2 of 5"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
Moreover, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
As regards the information sought regarding personal details of Ms. D. Viji, Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, the Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-Page 3 of 5
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.
Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].
23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, the Respondent, CPIO is cautioned to be careful and alert in future.
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)
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: 03.01.2019
Page 5 of 5