Central Information Commission
N Anbarasan vs Ministry Of Communications & ... on 30 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266/01359
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266
In the matter of:
N. Anbarasan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Scientist 'F'
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 06/12/2017 & 05/02/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 01/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 13/08/2019 Date of Decision : 27/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Scientist F, MEITY and CPIO, Shri S.K Srivastava, Scientist G, MEITY and FAA Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the certified copies of the following information:
1. Project proposal "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre" and Phase II submitted by CDAC.
2. Administrative Approval accorded for the Project Proposal "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre" and Phase II" submitted by CDAC.1
3. Sanction Letters issued for both phases of "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre".
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. In his second appeal he had submitted that the CPIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, vide his letter dated 06.12.2017 had intimated that "On the above subject the inputs of the TDIL Programme of Human Centered Computing Division are being collated it may take some time please bear with us." He further submitted that the CPIO had provided uncertified copy of incomplete information vide letter dated NIL. In response to his letter to send certified copies of information as requested in the RTI application, the CPIO sent certified copies of the same incomplete information sent earlier.
He further submitted that as the letter is not dated, he faces difficulty in counting the 30 days time limit to file the First Appeal within the prescribed time limit. He requested the Commission to advise the CPIO to mention the date of the letter while providing information or sending intimation.
Furthermore, he submitted that in respect of points No. 1,4,5,6,7,8,10 and 11 of the RTI application, the CPIO has intimated that "The requested document may disclose the technical and financial data of commercial confidence to third party i.e. CDAC and may harm their competitive position as both are engaged in similar business activities" without citing any provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. Plain reading of the intimation implies that requested information, if provided would disclose the commercial confidence to CDAC. This is illogical as the requested information is the document submitted by CDAC itself, there is no possibility of disclosing commercial confidence to CDAC. Further, the commercial confidence denied under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) could be denied provided the requested information denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature. Under the provisions of Right to 2 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266 Information Act 2005, whichever/whatever information cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person. In respect of point No.2 of the RTI application, the CPIO has provided "Administrative Approval" for the project "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre - Phase II". As the Appellant had requested "Administrative Approval" for both Phase I and Phase II of the project "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre", he requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide "Administrative Approval" for Phase I of the project "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre". This establishes that the CPIO had provided incomplete information and denied to provide available information.
The CPIO apprised the Commission about the background of the case, due to which information was not given. He submitted that as per the Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 the requested documents pertain to advanced technology projects and are intellectual property of premiere R & D institution Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) and these may disclose the technical and financial information of commercial confidence belonging to CDAC to the appellant M/s Applesoft and may harm the competitive position of CDAC as CDAC and M/s Applesoft both are engaged in language software development and are competitors.
He further relied on earlier judgments of the Commission. He further submitted that the appellant has filed an RTI appeal against the Ministry on the same subject which was heard on 17.07.2013 in the CIC. The matter was closed vide file no. CIC/BS/A/2012/000871/LS on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as matter sought contains information of commercial confidence pertaining to CDAC.
Similarly an appeal filed by the appellant against IIT Madras and IIT Kanpur seeking details about technologies & products developed, licensed, transferred, norms or guidelines to incubate companies, laboratories, project proposal, approval of Secretary/ concurrence of IFD/ Sanction letter/ Terms and conditions/ PRSG details/ Grant in Aid or funds received from national or International funding agencies/research and development work carried out in 3 the area of Indian Languages besides other information etc was also dismissed vide file no. CIC/OK/A/2007/01000 & 01082 dated 20.12.2007 on the basis of Sec 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 as Appellant ran a company for software development.
Further in an appeal filed by the appellant against NIC seeking information relating to files documents and records relating to development of websites or web based applications from various departments of Karnataka and details regarding funds etc was dismissed vide file no 24/ICPB/2006 dated 05.06.2006 on the basis of RTI Act 2005 Sec 8(1)(d) as Appellant himself is a software developer.
He further submitted that the appellant has already been provided a large amount of information over the last 14 years pertaining to projects on open type fonts, language CDs, TDIL Data centre etc undertaken by CDAC Pune.
The appellant wanted to sell his language software products to CDAC under language CD project but it could not materialise. It seems that information is not being sought for larger public interest, but for private and personal purposes.
The appellant had filed a court case in this matter in the year 2012 (OS no 8799/2012) against CDAC in the Hon'ble Court of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru city. The case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on 23rd March 2019.
The appellant has now filed a writ petition no. 26309/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court Bengaluru and made Ministry of Electronics and IT as respondent no. 3. The matter is subjudice and any further information sharing with the appellant may harm the interests of the Govt. Furthermore, the CPIO submitted a copy of the letter from D/o Legal Affairs Bengaluru to substantiate his plea.
He further submitted that the appellant tries to find fault in the documents obtained through RTI and contemplates filling of court cases and FIRs thereafter.
4File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266 The Appellant contended that being a citizen of India, he has every right to file as many RTI Applications as he likes. He further stated that information provided is misleading and fabricated, not to his satisfaction. Upon the Commission's query regarding as to why he feels the information provided is misleading or unsatisfactory, he insisted on alleged lack of bonafide in the conduct of the respondents.
The CPIO urged the Commission to look into the issues faced by the public authority in dealing with the RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant as it has been incurring disproportionate diversion of resources.
The appellant contended that there is no confidentiality in disclosing information relating to project proposal.
During hearing the CPIO to rebut the contention of the appellant shown a copy of the "Proposal for Development of "Open Type Fonts" for Indian Languages".
Based on a perusal of the same, the Commission observed that indeed the document contain technical information of third party i.e. CDAC and may harm their competitive position.
The appellant contested the above act of the CPIO, and stated that once such document is shown to the Commission, the document no longer remain confidential and it should be disclosed in larger public interest.
The appellant started shouting and showed disorderly behaviour in the court room of the Commission during the hearing. Despite repeated requests he failed to maintain the decorum of the Commission. He chose to walk out of the video conferencing room stating that he has no faith in the justice delivery mechanism of the Commission.
Observations:
The Commission has decided to hear the matter in the absence of the appellant as he himself desired to walk out of the hearing proceedings which 5 was conducted through VC raising doubts about the intentions of the Bench in deciding the matter impartially. The respondents however continued with the hearing.
The Commission is a quasi judicial body. It is necessary that decorum has to be maintained at all times and even where the contention is justified it must be in a language of utmost restraint, always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible. The appellant is advised to maintain good behaviour in future when is addressing a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial body.
The reply provided by the CPIO reads as follows:
1. Project proposal "Indian The requested document may Language Technology disclose the technical and financial Proliferation & Deployment data of commercial confidence to Centre" and Phase II submitted third party i.e. CDAC and may harm by CDAC their competitive position as both are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
2. Administrative Approval Copy of the relevant document accorded for the Project available on can provided on the Proposal "Indian Language advance payment of Rs 22/- (Rs. 2/-
Technology Proliferation & per copy)
Deployment Centre" and Phase
II" submitted by CDAC
3. Sanction Letters issued for both Copy of the relevant document
phases of "Indian Language available on can provided on the
Technology Proliferation & advance payment of Rs 44/- (Rs. 2/-
Deployment Centre" per copy)
4. Utilization Certificate submitted The requested document may by CDAC for the funds disclose the technical and financial sanctioned for the Project Indian data of commercial confidence to Language Technology third party i.e. CDAC and may harm 6 Proliferation & Deployment their competitive position as both Centre and Phase II are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
5. Financial & Technical progress The requested document may report submitted by CDAC for disclose the technical and financial both the phase of the Project data of commercial confidence to Indian Language Technology third party i.e. CDAC and may harm Proliferation & Deployment their competitive position as both Centre are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
6. Minutes of meeting of the The requested document may "Project Review and Steering disclose the technical and financial Group" pertaining to both the data of commercial confidence to phases of the Project "Indian third party i.e. CDAC and may harm Language Technology their competitive position as both Proliferation & Deployment are engaged in similar business Centre". activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
7. Annual account presented in the The requested document may standard format as required disclose the technical and financial under GFR 209(xiii) pertaining to data of commercial confidence to both the phases of the Project third party i.e. CDAC and may harm "Indian Language Technology their competitive position as both Proliferation & Deployment are engaged in similar business Centre" activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
8. Audited statement of accounts The requested document may submitted by CDAC pertaining to disclose the technical and financial both the phases of Project data of commercial confidence to "Indian Language Technology third party i.e. CDAC and may harm 7 Proliferation & Deployment their competitive position as both Centre" are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
9. Information pertaining to sale No such document available on assets acquired for both the record.
phases of the Project "Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre".
10. Progress- cum- achievement The requested document may report submitted by CDAC disclose the technical and financial pertaining to both the phases of data of commercial confidence to the Project "Indian Language third party i.e. CDAC and may harm Technology Proliferation & their competitive position as both Deployment Centre" are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
11. Completion report submitted by The requested document may CDAC pertaining to both the disclose the technical and financial phases of the Project "Indian data of commercial confidence to Language Technology third party i.e. CDAC and may harm Proliferation & Deployment their competitive position as both Centre" are engaged in similar business activities. Therefore, applicant may seek the information directly from CDAC.
The FAA vide his order dated 27.07.2018 held as follows:
" Please refer to your appeal under RTI Act 2005 dated 12.07.2018 against information provided to you for your letters bearing no. 2001 (ADMIN)/NRTIA-19 (14-24) dated 18.11.2017 (having 75 separate requests) have been examined. It may be noted that MeitY has been 8 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266 providing information against all your earlier requests since 2005.
However, following is observed in relation to the current request:
2. You were provided with the certified copies of the available information by the CPIO to the extent information was available.
3. Sanction letters, etc. Of MEITY refers to certain orders/instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
3. Sanction letters, etc. of MEITY refers to certain orders/ instructions of Ministry of Finance which may be referred on their website.
4. Documents created and submitted by C-DAC are their property and MeitY has fiduciary custody of these documets. These documents contain insight to technical and financial model of C-DAC working and disclosure of these may harm compe@@ve posi@on of C-DAC as provided in sec 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also sec on 8(1)(j) is to be read in totality and parts are not to be read independently.
5. The informa@on could not be provided free as large number of your queries is dispropor@onately diver@ng the resources of MEITY in understanding, searching, copying and dispatching the requested informa@on due to which office work suffers.
In view of the above your appeal is rejected. "
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission find it pertinent to rely on the following decisions:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held 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 9 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 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."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, 10 File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171266 preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."
In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
In the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not to be used as an instrument to harass the public authority. His multiple RTI applications have a grave impact on the functioning of the public authority, if this is allowed, the public authority cannot focus on their core duties and their entire time will be devoted to such frivolous/vexatious/ repeated/multiple RTI questions. This is misuse and it has to be checked.
The earlier bench of the Commission in a similar case of a different party in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002319-SA held as follows:
"16. Filing of multiple RTI on the same subject creates fear among the public authority. The feel tormented by such disgruntled/ retired employees consuming through RTI their precious resource apart from causing mental agony...."11
A coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Ex MWO S P Bajpai vs CPIO, Dept of Personal Services vide decision dated 24.10.2018 held as follows:
"Upon a conjoint reading of the above dicta and the perusal of facts on record, it is established well beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant is in a habit of misusing his right to information. Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future. CPIO is advised to deal with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the subject of grant of Honorary Commission or anything related to service related grievance emanating from this subject in accordance with the aforesaid observations of the Commission."
Decision:
The CPIO should have claimed exemption under the RTI Act as done by the FAA. However, In the interest of justice, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contentions of the appellant in his second appeal and provide a revised reply in respect of points no. 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10 and 11 as per the RTI Act, within 7 days of the receipt of this order. The appellant is also advised to exercise his right to information in a responsible manner and refrain from filing multiple RTI applications involving the same issue.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 12