Central Information Commission
Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 6 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC/PB/A/2008/1222
February 6th , 2009
Name of the Appellant: Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik
Public Authority: Dy. Secretary & CPIO
Sangeet Natak Akademi
Background of the case
1. The RTI request was filed on 21.05.2008 by the Appellant herein invoking provisions of the RTI Act 2005 seeking information on a detailed questionnaire. The Appellant was assigned a research study by the Planning Commission with the objective of studying and critically assess the role of Central Sangeet Natak Akademi as a nodal autonomous Central Government agency in promoting, propagating and disseminating the diversity of India's cultural expressions. The Appellant in their various questions totaling 57 main questions with further sub questions sought detailed information on the activities, policies, as also the information regarding the evaluation-study entrusted by the Planning Commission to the NGO Sankalp represented by the Appellant as also reiteration of the questions asked by the Appellant in the earlier RTI request.
2. The said application was addressed by the Appellant to the Ministry of Culture. Since the information related to the Akademi, the said application was forwarded by the Ministry and vide letter dated 02.07.2008 the Ministry requested the CPIO of the Akademi to furnish the necessary information. The CPIO of the Akademi in his reply dated 03.07.2008 denied to furnish any information reasoning that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall within the definition of 'information' under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. The Appellant filed an appeal dated 01.08.2008 before the Ministry of Culture, being aggrieved by such denial and obstruction in furnishing of information within specified time by the Akademi.
4. The Appellant filed an appeal before CIC on 22.08.2008 on not having received any response from the Appellate Authority coupled with the denial of information by the CPIO of the Akademi. The Appellant submitted in his appeal that she was aggrieved at the malafide denial and causing obstruction in furnishing of any information by the CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi and at not having received any response to the RTI request within the time limit as specified under the Act by the CPIO, [SNA]. It was further contended by the appellant that while rejecting the RTI request on the ground that voluminous information had been sought, the CPIO had not bothered to provide even a single piece of information. The Appellant, in the appeal further stated that the RTI application had to be filed in order to seek the said information because the Sangeet Natak Akademi, having provided measly and scanty information on its website, had failed to publish/disclose the detailed information as clearly stipulated by the Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, even on this ground, the Appellant states that the Akademi had acted in contravention of the provisions of the Section 4 (1) (b) RTI Act 2005.
5. The Commission vide its communication dated 14.11.2008, 27.11.2008, 20.12.2008 and 24.12.2008 sent notices for hearing seeking the presence of the concerned CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi and also the Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture.
6. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing lastly for January 12th, 2009 and the parties were intimated accordingly vide communication dated 24.12.2008. The Appellant had filed four separate RTI Applications in this issue and one complaint for non-compliance. Accordingly on the denial of information on all of them, four separate Appeals being Nos.
CIC/PB/A/2008/01221, CIC/PB/A/2008/01222, CIC/PB/C/2008/972/AD & CIC/PB/A/2008/01354/AD had been filed before the CIC. The Respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2009 communicated to the CIC that since the CPIO, Akademi had met with an accident; adjournment was sought by the alongwith the request for clubbing the hearings of all the four appeals on a single day. Hence the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, rescheduled the hearing on 6th February 2009 at 10.30 am.
7. The Respondent Public Authority, vide communication dated 05.02.2009, sent their submissions/reply to the appeals filed by the Appellant. In their submissions the Respondent stated that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture had taken strong exception to the decision of the Planning Commission in assigning the research project on the Akademi without consulting the concerned Ministry (Culture) or even the Akademi raising the basic issue of integrity and capacity of the Appellant's NGO to conduct such a study. While rejecting the RTI request of the Appellant herein the Respondents submitted their reservations on the facts that a) the Appellant, representing an organisation does not fall within the definition of "citizen" as laid down in the Section 3 of the Act; b) The Act while ensuring secure access of information from public authority to citizen, does not lay down any mandate for the public authority to provide services of gathering and supplying information for completion of research projects assigned to organization; c) Hypothetical assumptions of the researcher and and/or opinions or advice sought in the form of information do not fall within the definition of 'information' as per the provision of the Act, hence only the material or information available in records in physical form can be supplied by the CPIO. It was further submitted by the respondent in his written submission that information considered relevant and necessary for proactive disclosure has been duly posted on the website of the Akademi and the violation of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act can be ascertained by an audit of the proactive disclosure by a competent authority.
8. Dr. A N Chakravarty, Consultant represented the Respondent Public Authority, since the concerned CPIO was reportedly on medical leave.
9. The Appellant, Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik and Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mishra were present during the hearing.
DECISION
10. The submissions of the Respondent Akademi dated 05.02.2009, mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate the difference in opinion among the Ministry of Culture, Respondent Akademi, Appellant and the Planning Commission with respect to the assigning of such a research to an organization like SANKALP in view of the basic issue of integrity, capacity and competence of the Appellant NGO in question. In fact there has been strong observation from the Secretary, Ministry of Culture to the Planning Commission for withdrawal of the assignment as also for blacklisting of the NGO headed by the Appellant. Be that as it may, the said difference in opinions is out of the ambit of the instant appeals and the issue therein is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, hence the said facts though noted are not dealt with while deciding these RTI cases.
11. The detailed arguments of both the parties and the documentary records produced before the Commission indicates the fact that the questionnaire as put forth by the Appellant is indeed too voluminous and would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. However in view of the fact that the information sought by the Appellant is justified under the provisions of the Act, the Commission arrives at a decision with the consent of both the parties that the Appellant shall prioritize and revise the RTI request restricting the number of questions to 8 relevant questions, seeking information based on records available in physical form without asking information about hypothetical situations or queries which tend to be in the nature of asking for the opinion or advice of the CPIO.
12. The Appellant shall approach the concerned CPIO with the revised RTI request, as directed hereinabove within a period of 15 days and the CPIO is directed to furnish the information available with him within a period of 30 days thereafter. The Commission further directs the CPIO of the Akademi to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 by putting up all the relevant and necessary information pertaining to the various activities, programmes, policies etc on their website. In the event that the Appellant is still dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, she shall be free to approach the Commission seeking appropriate remedy available in law for the non compliance of the order.
[ANNAPURNA DIXIT] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik B-1/8, 2nd Floor, Africa Avenue Road, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029
2. Dy. Secretary & CPIO Sangeet Natak Akademi National Academy of Music, Dance & Drama Rabindra Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Jt. Secy. & First Appellate Authority Ministry of Culture 334 (A), 'C' Wing Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC