Central Information Commission
Rahul Bansal vs Union Public Service Commission on 12 November, 2021
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/UPSCM/A/2020/677023
Rahul Bansal ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Union Public Service
Commission, RTI Cell, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New
Delhi-110069.
Date of Hearing : 08/11/2021
Date of Decision : 08/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 22/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 03/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2020
2nd Appeal dated : Not on record
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2020 seeking the following information:
"I seek information for Question number- 17, 32, 40, 61. I want information/explanation of the answer mentioned by the commission in the answer key uploaded on the website. As the Commission seeks representation for 7 days after the date of the examination but releases answer key only after the complete cycle of the examination. Whereas other examination like IIT-JEE, SSC- CGL, NET, NEET are more transparent as they release answer key just after the exam and then seek comment on the answer key. Despite the fact that UPSC is most important leading recruitment agency for bureaucrats which demands transparency, accountability traits in the bureaucrats whereas itself practices opaque culture.
Q17- Here in the first statement - It can be integrated into ANY electronic device. It seems to have been taken from a news article like this one- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/how-digital-will- save-india-unlike-china-indias-economic-revolution-will-come-from- services-not-manufacturing/ But from the viewpoint of a common aware person, ANY electronic device can not take up these APIs. For e.g. these APIs can not be integrated in any or all television, radio, mobile handset. So this statement should have been a wrong.
Q32- Here in second statement, it says the value of the vote of MPs of the Lok Sabha is more than the value of the vote of MPs of the Rajya Sabha. Here two interpretations are possible. First that value of vote of each MP of Lok Sabha compared to each MP of Rajya Sabha. But as the statement includes plural saying MPs so it seems it collectively saying for all MPs of the house. In that case value of vote of Lok Sabha is more than Rajya Sabha MPs as Lok Sabha has more number of MPs. When cross checked with Hindi version of the question, the second interpretation seems more correct which also seems more correct in English version too. But the answer key seems to have taken first interpretation and market the statement as wrong. Q40- Here the answer key says that option (B) is the correct answer which says that If there is no laws, there is no liberty. This statement seems to be totally wrong. The NO word is an absolute word, it leaves no space for improvisation. So NO liberty is an extreme word. Even when the human civilization started when there was no order, no laws, there was liberty to o 2 what a person wanted, rather laws defined what a person should not do. So this should also be wrong.
Q61- Second statement says 5500 sq km. Now as per below link- https://www.isro.gov.in/irnss-programme It says 1500 km beyond boundary. It also mentions region in latitude and longitude which indicates length of 1500 km and effectively area is more than 5500 sq km. So 2nd statement should be correct. Also verify from the attached file at page9. Due to these variation, please provide what UPSC took for answer key."
The CPIO informed the appellant on 22.05.2020 that;
"...Questions are prepared by team of experts and reviewed by experts."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2020. FAA's order dated 07.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Arun Kumar, Under Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.
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 3 provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is 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) In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4