Central Information Commission
Kaushik Bhattacharjee vs Ministry Of Law & Justice on 28 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOLAJ/A/2020/124303
Kaushik Bhattacharjee ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Legislative Department, RTI
Cell, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001
2.CPIO,
Department of Legal Affairs
RTI Cell, Room No. 422, A
Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi-110001
3. CPIO,
Ministry of Women and Child
Development, RTI Cell, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 27/01/2022
Date of Decision : 27/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 24/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 25/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 18/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/07/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.1.2020 seeking the following information:-
1. Are you aware of the fact that almost 80 Countries throughout the World (eg.(eg:- Bhutan, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, Brazil etc) have already enacted Gender Neutral Laws?
2. Are you aware of the fact that as per data published by N.C.R.B., about 9O% of Bride torture, 73% Rape &70% molestation cases are false and also suicide of male is much higher than female?
3. Do you know that Law Commission of lndia through its 172th report already recommended to the Govt. of lndia for gender neutral Rape & sexual Harassment Laws in lndia?
4. Do you know that already an independent M.P. & renowned Advocate' Mr. KTS Tulsi has placed a private member bill for gender neutral Rape & Sexual Harassment Laws in Rajya Sabha?
5. Do you know that University Grants commission in the year 2016, has already made campus Sexual Harassment Law completely gender neutral?
6. Do you know that 'Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 Law is gender neutral?
7. lf the answers to the Question No. 1 to 6 are Yes', then, please give legal opinion as a P.A., why without assigning any cogent reason, Govt. of lndia is idle for suitable amendments in IPC. to make gender neutral Rape & sexual Harassment Laws in lndia?2
8 ln case of mental torture & abuse committed by bride against MIL, SIL what legal remedies are available for MIL, SIL, for taking action against bride?
9. lf the answer to the question No. 8 is No, legal remedy for M.I L.,S.l.L., against mental torture & abuse committed by bride, , is it not deliberate violation of Preamble, Articles 14, 19 (l)(a), 21 and also 15(3) read with Article 39A of the C.O.!. ?
10. Do you know that one sided women centric sexual crime & marital affair taw deliberately violated the principles of Jurisprudence, i.e "A person cannot take an advantage from his/her own wrong?
11. Whether, in case of mental torture, abuse and sexual harassment committed by bride and/or young woman against mate person, the total absence of law for protection in favour of male is the deliberate violation of preamble, Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 read ith Article 39A of the C.O.I, when as per Judgment passed by Hon'ble supreme Court of India "Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances" Shri krishnan Vs State of Rajasthan (1955)
2.SCR. 531 ?
12. lnspite of having gender neutral legal provision of death sentence in other IPC. why from 15.08.1947. to till date not a single woman death sentence convict has finally been executed?
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 24.02.2020 stating that "the information sought is in the nature of queries and in the nature of seeking legal advice u/s 2(f) o/ the RTI Act, 2005.Moreover this Department does not advice private Individuals."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2020. FAA's order dated 18.05.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and directed to transfer the RTI application to CPIO, Ministry of Women and Child Development for providing available information to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.3
Respondent(s): P C Meena, DS & CPIO (Legislative Department) along with R K Choudhary (Deptt. of Legal Affairs), ALA & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant vehemently argued that he has every right to seek opinions and advice under the RTI Act and demanded that restrictive interpretation of the RTI Act provisions should be discouraged and insisted that the CPIO should be directed to provide point-wise answer to each of the query raised by him.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant is insisting on reply/information to be provided on comments and rhetorical questions raised by him which are more in the nature of discussions of an academic discourse or law & policy debates.
For the said reasons, the Commission finds the transfer of the RTI Application to Respondent No.3 as recorded in the FAA's order to be extraneous and avoidable. To this extent, the role of Respondent No.3 in the matter is dispensed with.
The Appellant shall note that 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.
It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The relevant extracts of the said judgments are reproduced hereunder:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the 4 exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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.5
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) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7