Central Information Commission
Vipin Dhuliya vs Press Council Of India on 3 December, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/PCIND/A/2017/170297/SD
Vipin Dhuliya ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Press Council of India,
Soochna Bhawan, 8
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
RTI application filed on : 25/07/2017
CPIO replied on : 28/08/2018 & 01/09/2017
First appeal filed on : 04/09/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 12/09/2017
Second Appeal dated : 05/10/2017
Date of Hearing : 20/11/2018
Date of Interim Decision : 20/11/2018
Date of Final Decision : 30/11/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to inspect claim applications for 13th Press council made by certain Journalists Union and copies thereof.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20.11.2018: The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.1
Respondent: J. Shailendar, US (Ed) & Rep. of CPIO and Ms. Simmi Kanojiya, ASO, Press Council of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.
Commission asked the Rep. of CPIO to explain the denial of information under Section 8(1)(d), (j) and (e) of RTI Act.
Rep. of CPIO submitted that the concerned Unions have denied to the disclosure of information deeming it as confidential to them.
Commission inquired as to what are the contents of a claim application, if there is a proforma prescribed for it etc. Rep. of CPIO submitted that he is not carrying the proforma with him at present.
Interim Decision on 20.11.2018 In the facts of the case, Commission finds it appropriate to summon the relevant proforma as well as sample claim application of any one of the Unions mentioned in the RTI Application for an 'in-camera' hearing to decide the suitability of exemptions claimed in the matter.
Accordingly, Commission adjourns the hearing to 26.11.2017 at 2.00 pm for final decision.
CPIO is directed to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the 'in-camera' hearing.
Registry will ensure service of this order to Respondent by Dasti.
The appeal is reserved for final order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 26.11.2018:
The following were present:-
Respondent: J. Shailendar, US (Ed) & Rep. of CPIO and Ms. Simmi Kanojiya, ASO and Ms Divya Sinha, ASO, Press Council of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.2
File No : CIC/PCIND/A/2017/170297/SD CPIO produced the claim applications and supporting documents of all the claimants referred in the RTI Application. CPIO submitted additionally that as per their records 17 claims were received and the scrutiny committee completed the scrutiny on 21.09.2017 while the RTI Application was filed prior to completion of the scrutiny.
Final Decision Commission perused the records in detail and observed that apart from general information regarding the constitution, registration of the unions there are innumerable personal details of their members as well as financial details of the respective unions therein which cannot be even severed for provision as Appellant has sought to inspect the claim applications and take copies thereof.
Now, Appellant has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Indian Federation of Small & Medium Newspapers vs. Press Council of India dated 04.05.1995 to draw an analogy with the instant case, wherein Court allowed the petitioner (rival claimants) to inspect the claim applications Commission is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied upon by the Appellant is not applicable to the instant case, even though the subject matter is the same but the moot question is not with respect to the provisions of RTI Act in the said judgment. It is to be noted that RTI Act provides for exemption of certain categories of information and the case referred by the Appellant is not in the context of the said Act or its exemptions. The exemptions of RTI Act cannot be overruled on the mere premise of an analogy drawn from a judgment of superior Court on a similar subject matter.
Appellant has neither disputed the exemptions of Section 8(1)(j), 8(1)(d) of 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, nor claimed any larger public interest in the disclosure of this information. He has only relied on the aforesaid judgment to claim that the legal position is settled in this case which is not tenable for reasons recorded above.
Accordingly, no relief is being ordered in the matter.3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
4