Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Central Vigilance Commission on 24 February, 2021
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
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/604039
SAMIR SARDANA अपीलकता /Appellant
.....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, SATARKTA BHAWAN, A -WING,
CGO COMPLEX , INA MARKET,
NEW DELHI-110023 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/02/2021
Date of Decision : 23/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31/10/2018
CPIO replied on : 28/11/2018
First appeal filed on : 05/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/03/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 31.10.2018 seeking information on following fourteen points is as follows:-
1. "Provide the complaint/Grievance numbers of all the complaint/grievances received (by the CVC) on any IPS officer, in the last 7 years-alongwith the name of the officer.
2. Provide the Names of the IPS Officer, in the last 7 years - which were taken up for prosecution.
3. Provide the Complaint/Grievance numbers of all the Complaint/Grievances Received (By the CVC ) on any IPS Officer serving in the Goa Police(as at the date of the complaint or as at the date of the event related to the compliant or at any time thereafter) in the last 15 years - alongwith the name of the officer.
4. Provide the names of the IPS officers serving in the Goa Police, in the last 15 years - which were taken up for prosecution.
5. PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the files related to complaints on or complaints related to Sunil Garg, TN Mohan, V Ranganathan, Priyanka Kashyap, Devesh Mahale, Karthik Kashyap, Vimal Gupta, for the last 15 years - all being IPS officers who served in the Goa Police in the last 15 years.
6. PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the files related to complaints on or complaints related to Ankit Garg and Alok Mittal, for the last 15 years - all being IPS officers who served in the NIA in the last 15 years GPS.
7. Provide the Complaint/Grievance numbers of all the Complaint/Grievances received (by the CVC) on any GPS (Goa Police Service) officer, in the last 10 years - alongwith the name of the officer.
8. Provide the names of the GPS officers, in the last 10 years - which were taken up for prosecution.
9. PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the files related to complaints on or complaints related to Sunita Sawant, Sucheta Desai, Lawrence Dsouza, Sammy Tavares, Duttagaru Sawant, Rajesh Job, Bosco George, Vishram Borkar-All Officers In the Goa Police Service.
10. Provide the Complaint/Grievance Nos. of all the complaint/grievances received (by the CVC), on DOV/ACB or staff or a officer of a DOV/ACB, in the last 7 years - alongwith the name of the officer/person.2
11. Provide the names of the staff or a officer director of a DOV/ACB, in the last 7 years - which were taken up for prosecution- along with the name of the officer/person.
12. PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the files related to complaints on or complaints related to Sucheta Desai, Nathine Arajua, Shashikant Kamat.
13.Provide the Complaint/Grievance Nos. of all the complaint/grievances received (by the CVC), on Bureaucrats, Ministers and politicians in the state of Goa (as at the date of the complaint or as at the date of the event related to the compliant or at any time thereafter) in the last 15 years - alongwith the name of the officer/person.
14. Provide the names of the Bureaucrats, Ministers and politicians in the state of Goa, in the last 10 years - which were taken up for prosecution- along with the name of the officer/person."
Being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO denying the information citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2018. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: B.D Gajghate, Dy. Secyratery & CPIO and Rohminglien Songatte, SO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated at length that the information sought for by him concerns transparency and probity in the functioning of the CVC and expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was informed that the information sought for by him cannot be provided as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.3
DECISION The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely unspecific and cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authorities to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Moreover, in the instant RTI Application, the Appellant has sought for a multitude of details related to the personal records of various third parties, which would stand exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, 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 the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of 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 4 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."
Having observed as above, the Commission does not find it expedient to adjudge the merits of the CPIO's reply or order any relief in the matter.
The Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5 6