Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi on 20 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
Files No.: CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/604904 +
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/605379 +
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/605385 +
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/607976
Naresh Kadyan ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Zoo Authority,
RTI Cell, B-1 Wing,6th Floor, Pt,
Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, New DElhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/01/2023
Date of Decision : 18/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The abovementioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint (s):
RTI application (s) filed on : 07-11-2021, 11-11-2021, 12-11-2021 &
10-10-2021
CPIO replied on : 06-12-2021, 10-12-2021, 10-12-2021 &
09-11-2021
First appeal (s) filed on : 07-12-2021, 11-12-2021, 10-11-2021
First Appellate Authority order (s) : 21-01-2022 & 09-12-2021.
2nd Appeal/Complaint (s) dated : NIL
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/604904
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2021 seeking the following information:
xxx Supply me the copies of authority enjoyed by office bearers and members, as stated above and along with the following and concerned resolutions with minutes, concerned file notings:
1. Complete list - details of the establishments, recognized by the CZA, under section 38-H of the WP Act, 1972, registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860.
2. Complete list, details, point wise, strict compliance of terms and conditions of the CZA Recognition, confirming Master Plan approvals.
3. Details of 5 freedoms of animals, within all Zoos, as per section 3 of PCA Act, 1960, read with orders passed by Supreme Court of India, SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007 with Uttrakhand High Court.
4.A). Tenure of these office bearers with Rules and Regulations of the G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society.
B). Consequent upon the nominations made vide paragraph one above, the composition of the reconstituted G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society, shall be as under:
C). Complete list with terms and conditions of the all persons, employed with their designation and pay scales, retire benefits as well. D). Complete details about removal of Bharat Ratna, before G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society, with all communications, letters, orders and circulars, related to Bharat Ratna.
E). Point wise, strict compliance, of the following sections:
Societies Registration Act, 1860: An Act for the Registration of Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies. Preamble: Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education or for charitable purposes: Section 4: 5: 6: 12: 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Copy attached.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Complainant on 06.12.2021 stating as under -
Sl.No. Information Sought Information Provided 1 Complete list - details of the The requested information is not establishments, recognized by the CZA, collated by this public authority.
under section 38-H of the WP Act, 1972, However, a list of all the zoos registered under the Society Registration recognized by this public Act, 1860. authority is readily available ion 2 Complete list, details, point wise, strict the website of this public compliance of terms and conditions of authority under the head 'Public the CZA Recognition, confirming Master Information' and 'Information Plan approvals. about zoos'.
3 Details of 5 freedoms of animals, within The request information is vague all Zoos, as per section 3 of PCA Act, and ambiguous and requires the 1960, read with orders passed by CPIO to draw inference which is Supreme Court of India, SLP (C) beyond the scope of the Right to No.11686 of 2007 with Uttarakhand Information Act, 2005. High Court.
4A Tenure of these office bearers with Rules and Regulations of the G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society.
4B Consequent upon the nominations made vide paragraph one above, the composition of the reconstituted G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society, shall be as under: The requested information is not 4C Complete list with terms and conditions available with this public of the all persons, employed with their authority and may be sought designation and pay scales, retire directly from the zoo. benefits as well.
4D Complete details about removal of Bharat Ratna, before G.B. Pant High Altitude Zoo Management Society, with all communications, letters, orders and circulars, related to Bharat Ratna.
4E Point wise, strict compliance, of the The request information is vague following sections: and ambiguous and requires the Societies Registration Act, 1860: An Act CPIO to draw inference which is for the Registration of Literary, Scientific beyond the scope of the Right to and Charitable Societies. Preamble: Information Act, 2005. Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education or for charitable purposes:
Section 4: 5: 6: 12: 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20.
Copy attached.
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2021. FAA's order dated 21.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/605379 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Supply action taken reports of MOEAF-E-2021-02090 and MOEAF-E-2021 02095 with attachments, with all letters and file notings.
2. Complete list - details of declared trophies of wild animals and birds, with the Zoos, recognised by the CZA, since beginning till date, onwards 2013.
3. Complete list - details of undeclared trophies of wild animals and birds, with the Zoos, recognised by the CZA, since beginning till date, onwards 2013.
4. Copies of compliance of all Advisories, issued by AWBI and WCCB.
5. Copies of compliance of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014, passed in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, related to 5 freedoms of animals.
Padma Shree Rubin David Natural History Museum, violated article 18(1) of Indian Constitution, but reply of Ahmedabad is wrong, ban species are very much exhibited, besides undeclared trophies of wild animals and birds, all public servants on pay role of CZA with WCCB and AWBI with NTCA, may awake up, this is last alarming call from 1st Political Party in India: Animal Welfare Party for animals, restoring their five freedoms.
1. Issue circulars to declared trophies, to get ownership, disclosing the source of procurement, as Ahmedabad zoo has many trophies, which needs scanning.
2. Omit Padma awards, prefixed as title, direct Ahmedabad zoo.
3. Get recognition of AWBI, under section 22 of PCA Act, 1960, by all Zoos, displaying animals in their captivity, but look like wild animals, as per their shape and size, without wild character, because all are fed manually?
4. Restoration of 5 freedoms of animals, keeping in view, Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014, passed in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007.
5. Omit the definition of goods, from the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. LIX of 1949), animals are defined goods, which is not acceptable to the Animal Welfare Party, Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds www.scoutingindia.in with OIPA: Indian People for Animals.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Complainant on 10.12.2021 stating as under
Sl. Information Sought Information Provided No. 1 Supply action taken of These files do not pertain to Central Zoo MOEAF-E-2021-02090 and Authority. Hence, desired information is not MOEAF-E-2021- 02095 with available with this public authority.
attachment, with all letters and file nothings.
2 Complete list - details of The information is not collated at the Central declared trophies of wild Zoo Authority. animals and birds , with the zoos, recognised by the CZA, since beginning till date , onwards,2013.
3 Complete list - details of undeclared Trophies of wild animals and birds, with the zoos, recognised by the CZA, Since beginning till date, onwards 2013.
4 Copies of compliance of all The information sought is not available with Advisories issued by AWBI this public authority. and WCCB.
5 Copies of complies of supreme • The desired information is readily court order dated 07.05.2014, available on the website of the Central passed in SLP(C) No.11686 of Zoo Authority. It details the steps taken 2007,related to freedoms of by CZA to ensure welfare of captive animal. animals housed in Indian Zoos-
• https://cza.nic.in/guidelines-for- managment-of-zoos/en • https://cza.nic.in/page/en/guidlines-on
-development-and-planning-of-zoos • https://cza.nic.in/publications/en 6 Padma Shree Rubin David Natural History museum,Voileted Article 18(1) Of the Indian Constitution .
but reply of Ahmedabad is
Wrong ,ban Species are
very much exhibited ,
besides undeclared
trophies of wild animals
and birds, all public
servants on pay role of CZA No information is Sought.
with WCCB and AWIB with
NTCA, may awake up .this
is last alarming call from 1st
political party in india:
animal welfare party for
animals , restoring their
five freedoms.
7 Issue circulars to Declared
trophies, to get ownership,
Disclosing the source of
procurement, as
Ahmedabad Zoo has many
trophies, which needs
scanning.
8 Omit Padma Awards,
prefixed as title, Direct
Ahmedabad Zoo.
9 Get recognition of
AWBI.Under section 22 of
PCA Act,1960,by all zoos,
Displaying animals, as per
their shape and size,
without wild, character ,
and size , without wild
character ,because all re
fed manually.
10 Restoring of 5 freedoms of
animals, keeping in views
Supreme court order dated
07..5.2014, passed in SLP
(C) No.11686 of 2007.
11 Omit the definition of
goods, from the GUJARAT
PROVINCIIAL MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS Act,1948
(Bombay Act No. LIX of
1949), animals are defined
goods, which is not
acceptables to the Animals
Welfare Party, Scouts and
Guides for animals and
birds www.scoutingindia.in
with OIPA: Indian People
for Animals.
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2021. FAA's order dated 21.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/605385 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2021 seeking the following information:
Animal Welfare Party: AWP, 1st Political Party in India, fighting hard for animals, restoring their 5 freedoms, but adopted mechanism of Indian. Government, have contradiction and discriminations, as below, adopting double standards:
Section 2 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
(1) Animal, includes amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs. (2) Animal article, means an article made from any captive animal or wild animal, other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal has been used, and ivory imported into India and an article made there from.
(5) Captive animal, means any animal, specified in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III or Schedule IV, which is captured or kept or bred in captivity. (18A) Livestock, means farm animals and includes buffaloes, bulls, bullocks, camels, cows, donkeys, goats, sheep, horses, mules, yaks, pigs, ducks, geese, poultry and their young but does not include any animal specified in Schedules I to V. Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
(13). GOODS, includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.
(14). Goods carriage, means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. Whereas, these goods, as stated above, have five freedoms, even Supreme Court order, dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686 of 2007, also confirmed, as per section 54: Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as:
(i) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition.
(ii) freedom from fear and distress.
(iii) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort.
(iv) freedom from pain, injury and disease and
(v) freedom to express normal patterns of Behaviour, read with the section 3 of the PCA Act, 1960 and article 51 A(g) of Indian Constitution. Section 2 of the PCA Act, 1960:
(a) Animal, means any living creature other than a human being.
(c) Captive animal, means any animal (not being a domestic animal) which is in captivity or confinement, whether permanent or temporary, or which is subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement or which is pinioned or which is or appears to be maimed.
(d) Domestic animal, means any animal which is tamed or which has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man or which, although it neither has been nor is being nor is intended to be so tamed, is or has become in fact wholly or partly tamed. Supply concerned file noting, attached.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 10.12.2021 stating as under
Sr.No. Information Sought Information Provided st
1. Animal Welfare Party : AWP,1 Political Party in India, fighting hard for animal, restoring their 5 freedoms ,but adopted mechanism No information is sought.
of Indian Government, have contradiction and discrimination ,as below adopting double standards:
2. Section 2 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972:
(1).Animal, include amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and No Information is sought their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles ,their eggs.
(2).Animal articles , means an article ,made from any captive animal or wild animals, other than vermin,and includes an article or object in which the wholw or any part of such No information is sought animals has been used, and ivory imported into india, an article made therefrom.
(5).Captive animals, means any animal,specified in schedule III or schedule IV, which is captured or No information is sought kept or bred in captivity.
18(A) Livestock, means farm animals and include buffaloes, bulls, bullocks, camels, cows, donkeys, goats, sheeps, horses, mules, yaks, pigs, ducks, geese, poultry, and their young but does not include any No information is sought animals specified in schedules I to V. Section 2 of moter vehicles Act,1988:
(13).GOODS, include live-stocks, and anything(other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle ) carried by a vehicle except living persons,but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor Car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or in personal luggage of passengers No information is sought travelling in the vehicle.
(14).Goods Carriage, means any motor vehicles constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicles not so constructed or adopted when used for the carriage of goods.
Whereas these goods ,as stated above, have five freedoms, even supreme Court order, dated 07.05.2014 in SLP(C) No.11686 of 2007.also confirmed, as per section 54: Chapter 7.1.2 of the guidelines of OIE, recognizes five internationally recognized freedoms for animals, such as
(i)Freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition.
(ii)freedom from fear and distress.
(iii)freedom from physical and thermal discomfort.
(iv)Freedom from pain, injury, and disease.
(v)Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviours. Read with the section 3 of the PCA Act,1960 and articles 51A(g) of Indian constitution.
Section 2 of the PCA Act,1960:
(a)Animals, means any living creature other than a human being.
(c) Captive animals, means any animals (not being a domestic animals) which is in captivity or confinement, whether permanent or temporary ,or which is subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from preventing its escape from captivity or confinement or which is pinioned or which is or appears to b maimed.
(d) Domestic animals, means any animals which is tamed or which has been or is being sufficient tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man or which , although it neither has been nor is being nor is intended to be so tamed, is or has become in fact wholly or partly tamed.
Supply with concerned file nothing The requested information is related to discrimination between unspecific.it required the CPIO to draw animals with goods. deductions and inferences which is beyond the scope of the RTI Act,2005.
List of Complaints, lodged for restoration of 5 freedoms, in ZOOs, compliance of court order, including Zoos of 100 smart cities.
Goods may not have 5 freedoms, The requested information is not supply details activities of AWBI, available with this public authority. preventing abuse against goods, defined animals.
Goods , cannot be living creature, have pain and sufferings ,supply relevant records of NHAI, NTCA,WCCB, PE with AWBI and CZA.
Fundamental duties never allowed animals as goods ,supply all details , related to animals, beings living creatures, treated as goods ,against articles 51A(g) of Indian Constitution.
Any proposals to omit animals from to definitions of goods.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2021. FAA's order dated 21.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/CZAUR/C/2022/607976 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2021 seeking the following information:
Hanumanvatika operators were many but PFA obtained grant in aid from CZA without proper, legal land and building, whereas 250 Monkeys left abandoned to die with Rehabilitation, supply me details, mechanism, process to release these rescued 250 Monkeys, along with
1. Community Policing as man of many achievements and distinctions: Voice for voiceless: Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth: Philanthropist by profession: Activist by mission: Humanitarian by choice, Gandhian by vision and action, being habitual khadi wearers and scout worrier, speaking truth as passion - Naresh Kadyan, wants to know with all concerned file notings with copies of letters and MoU, Agreements, deeds etc, executed, by Hanumanvatika operators in Haryana.
2. Complete details - list of Monkeys accepted by Hanumanvatika for treatment, care and shelter
3. Complete details - list of Establishments, their experiment Monkeys accepted by Hanumanvatika for treatment, care and shelter
4. Animal Birth Control Scheme was not adopted by Hanumanvatika, all 250 Monkeys were not recued besides supply the details about baby Monkeys born in captivity of Hanumanvatika with present status of these Monkeys, as per report they are scattered unscientifically here and there, without any scheme and policy, vision as well.
5. Hanumanvatika operator PFA of Menka Ghandhi lost recognition in 2013, complete details, list of Establishments, clarifying the release process with recognised places
6. Wildlife sos charged 10% penalty but PFA of Menka Ghandhi was charged 7.6%, complete details about double standards, complete details about mechanism, system develops to recovery efforts made, communicated, supply all copies.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 08.11.2021 stating as under -
Sl. No. Information Sought Information Provided 1 Community Policing as man of It is informed that the requested many achievements and information does not come within distinctions: Voice for voiceless: the purview of this public authority. Fighter by spirit: Jat by birth:
Philanthropist by profession:
Activist by mission: Humanitarian by choice, Gandhian by vision and action, being habitual khadi wearers and scout worrier, speaking truth as passion - Naresh Kadyan, wants to know with all concerned file notings with copies of letters and MoU, Agreements, deeds etc, executed, by Hanumanvatika operators in Haryana 2 Complete details - list of Monkeys The information sought is not accepted by Hanumanvatika for available with this public authority. treatment, care and shelter 3 Complete details - list of Establishments, their experiment Monkeys accepted by Hanumanvatika for treatment, care and shelter 4 Animal Birth Control Scheme was not adopted by Hanumanvatika, all 250 Monkeys were not recued besides supply the details about The information sought is not baby Monkeys born in captivity of available with this public authority. Hanumanvatika with present status of these Monkeys, as per report they are scattered unscientifically here and there, without any scheme and policy, vision as well.
5 Hanumanvatika operator PFA of Menka Ghandhy lost recognition in 2013, complete details, list of Establishments, clarifying the release process with recognised places 6 Wildlife sos charged 10% penalty The requested information is but PFA of Menka Ghandhy was vague/unspecific and the applicant is charged 7.6%, complete details requested to clearly specify the about double standards, complete information so that he same can be details about mechanism, system furnished. develops to recovery efforts made, communicated, supply all copies Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2021. FAA's order dated 09.12.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: R. S. Rawat, Finance Officer & CPIO along with Surya Gupta, Law Officer present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Complainant telephonically informed the Registry of this bench that he will not be able to participate in the hearing owing to personal exigencies and prayed the Commission that his cases may be decided on merit.
The CPIO relied on his latest written submissions filed prior to hearing and at the outset apprised the Commission that the Complainant is a habitual RTI Applicant who has filed multiple RTI Applications seeking similar kind of vague information and the contents of his RTI Applications are complicated/ lengthy to the extent of being very incoherent and non-decipherable and further to even comprehend the exact meaning of his queries , in fact, entails substantial time of the CPIO' and also causes harassment . Nonetheless, he in a bonafide conduct provided point wise replies along with relevant available information in response to each RTI Application earlier and now vide latest written submission. He added that even otherwise, the list of relevant rules/regulations/guidelines and other ancillary information pertaining to Central Zoo Authority are in the public domain and which can be easily accessed from their website. This, factual position has already been intimated to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that a bunch of Complaints (s)/ Appeals bearing File no. CIC/MORTH/A/2020/685460 & others of the same Complainant against same/another public authority have already been heard and disposed of by this bench on 07.11.2022 and 27.12.2022. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Complaints listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 5 mattes of the Complainant simultaneously and the Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by merely expanding the nature of information sought in each of his RTI Applications merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"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. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-
productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Complainant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future." Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application(s) in question is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Complainant are vague and unspecific which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se and also it contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Complainant shall note that the 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
His attention is also 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) As far as applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to the instant matters are concerned, it can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the parties is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, no penal action against the CPIO can be initiated in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision:
04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
Having observed as above and considering the inability of the Complainant in substantiating his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply in the instant Complaints, no further action is warranted in the instant matters.
The Complaint (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /