Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vidip Vikas vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 21 August, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2024/634869

Shri Vidip Vikas                                                  ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information                   ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Technology

Date of Hearing                           :   19.08.2025
Date of Decision                          :   19.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner            :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :            13.03.2024
PIO replied on                    :            08.04.2024
First Appeal filed on             :            03.08.2024
First Appellate Order on          :            08.08.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :            12.08.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"This application is a clarification to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting regarding the Copyright Policy published on various governmental sites including Hon. President of India, and Department of Defence. The Copyright Policy, as stated on the various governmental sites, outlines restrictions on the reproduction and use of content from the concerned department(s) website without prior permission.

However, according to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Notification (New Delhi, the 10th February, 2017) about Government Open Data License India, National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, verbatim, Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, and subject to the conditions listed under section 4 and 7 of this document, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non- commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.

The apparent contradiction arises from the fact that several government website(s) Copyright Policies restrict the reproduction and use of content without due permission, whereas the NDSAP provides users with broad rights to use government data generated.

Therefore, I am seeking clarification on the following points:

- How do the Copyright Policies on various government websites align with the provisions of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)? Are there any exceptions or specific conditions under which the Copyright Policies on government websites may supersede the provisions of the The websites which there is a conflict, including but are not limited to, are as follows-

Department of Defence The President of India Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer(s) Welfare Ministry of Civil Aviation Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Legislative Department Ministry of Food Processing Industries Ministry of Steel Ministry of Cooperation Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and many more. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request that you provide clarification on the aforementioned points at the earliest convenience. Your response will help in ensuring transparency and understanding regarding the usage rights of government data across different government websites."

The CPIO, (Digital Governance Division), MeitY vide letter dated 08.04.2024 replied as under:-

"Please refer to your RTI request DITEC/R/E/24/00346 dated 13.03.2024. In this regard, as far as the Digital Governance Division under MeitY is concerned, the information sought is not clear/not specific. Hence, the applicant is requested to provide specific queries and make a fresh RTI request for seeking information."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.08.2024 stated as under:-

2. "The matter has been reviewed and it is informed that the information sought under RTI Act, 2005 is type of queries/questions in nature, which does not come under the provision of RTI Act, 2005. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as is in this case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions. The Petitioner's right extends only to seek information as defined in Section 2(f). (Ref: Decision no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2016, copy enclosed).

3. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 18.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reiterating the fact that information sought by the Appellant could not be furnished since the RTI queries were vague and because the Appellant had sought clarifications instead of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover the queries raised by the Appellant referred to NDSAP and copyright policies which pertain to the Department of Science and Technology and Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, not MeitY, neither did the website refer pertain to MeitY.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Srabana Ghosal - CPIO/Sci-B, Digital Governance Division, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was present during hearing.

The Appellant has chosen not to contest the case. The Respondent placed reliance on the reply sent by the PIO, FAA's order and the written submission dated 18.08.2025 mentioned hereinabove, whereby information available on record had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant, and he has chosen not to buttress his appeal. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 18.08.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.

Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate, within the precincts of the RTI Act and the Appellant has chosen not to pursue his own appeal, no further intervention is deemed warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)