Central Information Commission
Namrata Madaan vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 10 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/189940
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2018
Date of Interim Decision : 07.05.2018
Date of Final Decision : 09.08.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Ms. Namrata Madan
Respondent : PIO
Section Officer, Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, P.N.D.T. Section
Through: Sh. Ajay Kumar - Under
Secy, Sh. Deepak Kumar Bhatt
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.04.2016
PIO replied on : 25.07.2016
First Appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 09.12.2016
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 19.04.2016, the appellant sought following information:-
1. Guidelines issued by National PNDT to be followed for record maintenance under PC-PNDT Act.
2. Inspection of Madan ultrasound centre on 20.11.2015 by team members of NIMC Delhi
3. Details of information required:
1. What records are to be maintained by the registered ultrasound centre in Haryana give details.
2. After finding the irregularity in the records of the registered u/s centres, what are the guidelines for giving punishments and what is the basis on which quantum of such punishment is based. Provide copy showing what punishment is to be given for what irregularity.Page 1 of 6
3. Copy of letter instructing about record keeping & maintenance of record, issued to all the state PNDT.
4. Before inspecting any centre, did NIMC team members on 20.11.2015 inspected the records of ultrasound centres to be inspected by them, kept in DAA/CMO office Ambala and discussed with them regarding the maintenance of records in all ultrasound centres of District Ambala.
5. Did the NIMC team on 20.11.2015 check the form-F of registered centre and found printed reports & images attached with it, in the office copies of DAA Ambala, If yes provide copies of form-F of all registered centres of Ambala for last 2 years.
6. Was the inspection done at Madan u/s centre on 20.11.2015 as routine one or on complaint basis.
7. Before coming for inspection on Madan ultrasound centre dated 20.11.2015 whether NIMC members had checked last 2 years inspection reports of the said centre in DAA office.
8. How many centres had been punished under 20(3) in last 2 years routine inspections provide copies.
9. How many centres punished under section 20(3) were run by radiologists & how many by non-radiologists provide details with copies.
10. Do the member of NIMC sign the inspection reports of the centre they inspect? Please provide the copies for last 2 years.
SPIO/Consultant(PNDT), Panchkula vide letter dated 25.07.2016 transferred the RTI application to Civil Surgeon, Ambala on point no. 4, 5 & 7. CAPIO/Section Officer, MoHFW, PNDT Section vide letter dated 08.07.2016 furnished information as under:-
1 & 3. Please refer to Section 29 of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994 alongwith Rule 9 of the PC&PNDT Rules. 1996, which prescribes maintenance of records under the Act. (copy enclosed)
2.Please refer to Section 22 to 28 of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994. (copy enclosed) 4,5,6 & 8. The NIMC team gives its recommendation to concerned District Appropriate Authority for further necessary action. The recommendations of NIMC team in respect to Madan Ultrasound Centre are not available with the Division. However, your RTI application is being sent to Govt. of Haryana with the request to provide information in this regard.
8 & 9- The requisite information is not maintained in this Division.
You are requested to approach concerned State Government for the information.
10- The NIMC reports, as submitted by NIMC team and available with this Division are enclosed herewith.
Page 2 of 6Having not received information within stipulated period of one month, the appellant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing:
Both parties are present and the Appellant is represented by a counsel who focuses that his primary contention is against the delay beyond 30 days in providing the information. He further elaborates that though he is no longer in need of the information since his case has now been decided, the fact that he did not receive the information within mandated time, caused much harassment to him.
Respondent has pointed out that queries number 1,2,3 and 10 have been replied by furnishing the relevant provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre- natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. In so far queries number 4,5 and 7 are concerned, the same have been responded vide letter dated 02.09.2016 by the Dy. Civil Surgeon(PNDT), Ambala. Certain information related to the State Government and hence the appellant had been informed accordingly vide letter dated 08.07.2016 to approach the concerned State Government.
Interim Decision: 07.05.2018
1. Perusal of records of the case and hearing of averments of the parties bring forth a case where a very poignant set of queries had been raised by the appellant vide RTI Application dated 19.04.2016. The issue of maternal health care and prevention of female foeticide is an area of prime focus of the Government and hence number of schemes and initiatives have been devised for this purpose. The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is also one similar welfare legislation enacted and brought into operation from 1st January, 1996, in order to check female foeticide. Provisions of this Act including the Rules aim at prohibition of determination and disclosure of the sex of foetus. While prohibiting advertisements relating to pre-natal determination of sex, the Act prescribes punishment for its contravention.Page 3 of 6
2. Queries of the appellant were aimed at eliciting information about implementation of the Act. While queries 1,2,3,4,5,7 and 10 have been replied belatedly, the information as sought vide queries number 8 and 9 about (a) number of centres punished under 20(3) from time to time in course of routine inspections and (b)number of centres punished under section 20(3) run by radiologists & how many by non-radiologists etc. have not been answered at all. The CAPIO has instead passed on the onus of holding such information upon the concerned State Government authorities, without transferring the RTI Application to the State appropriate authority.
3. The unexplained delay of two months beyond the mandated period as per the RTI ACT, in providing the response dated 08.07.2016 wherein only relevant provisions of the PNDT Act, 1994 have been cited is not acceptable nor found justified. The then CAPIO, Sh. Shashank Sahu is thus directed to explain, within two weeks of receipt of this order, the reason behind the inordinate delay in transmission of the reply dated 08.07.2016.
The PIO-MoH&FW shall ensure service of this order upon Sh. Shashank Sahu and also that the directions are complied within two weeks of receipt of this order. Non compliance of these directions by any of the officials shall be construed as deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of the information and shall accordingly attract penal action.
4. It is noted that the information sought against queries number 8 and 9 indicate the role of the authorities in strict adherence and monitoring of the implementation of the PNDT Act. Such information is essential for the awareness of the public at large and is likely to act as a deterrent from violation of the law.
Hence, the Commission is of the considered opinion that such information about the penal action taken by the concerned authorities Page 4 of 6 under Section 20 of the PNDT Act and Rules against the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic found liable for a breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules should be published by the Respondent, MoHFW on its website under the head PNDT Act and its implementation. It is thus directed invoking Section 19(8) that information about Action Taken under Section 20 of the PNDT Act alongwith names of such Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic should be published for the knowledge of public at large.
5. The Respondent PIO-MoHF&W shall take action as directed in the paragraphs 3 and 4 above and submit i) explanation for the delay caused in replying to the RTI application and ii) Action Taken report for publishing of the information on website, as cited in paragraph 4 above within three weeks of receipt of this order.
Order reserved.
6. Pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 07.05.2018, the Commission is in receipt of a communication dated 06.07.2018 from Sh. Ajay Kumar-Under Secretary to the Government of India, which contains the following information:
Order Reply/compliance Explanation for the delay caused It is submitted that the RTI in replying to the RTI application application dated 19.04.2018 was within two weeks of receipt of thismisplaced at that time and when it order was found, it was replied with the information available in the Division.
Further, it is to state that ACPIO had no intention to hide the information.
The unintentional delay may kindly be condoned.
Action taken report for publishing Data received from States/UT in of the information on Website Quarterly Progress reports on sealing within three weeks of receipt of & Seizer, Ongoing Court Cases, this order Convictions under the PC & PNDT Act, Page 5 of 6 State/UT wise has been uploaded on Ministry's Website dated 06.07.2018 which may be seen at website in "news and highlights".
7. The order dated 07.05.2018 specifically directed:
".....The then CAPIO, Sh. Shashank Sahu is thus directed to explain, within two weeks of receipt of this order, the reason behind the inordinate delay in transmission of the reply dated
08.07.2016.
The PIO-MoH&FW shall ensure service of this order upon Sh. Shashank Sahu and also that the directions are complied within two weeks of receipt of this order. Non compliance of these directions by any of the officials shall be construed as deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of the information and shall accordingly attract penal action."
However, as is revealed from the aforementioned submissions from the Respondent, no such explanation has been received from Sh. Shashank Sahu - CAPIO nor has the PIO demonstrated that copy of Commission's order dated 07.05.2018 was served upon Sh. Shashank Sahu. The response of Sh. Ajay Kumar, as noted above, is found deficient and not in consonance with the specific directions of the Commission. The directions of the Commission have been clearly and deliberately violated and hence, the Commission hereby directs the Registry of this Bench to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon Sh. Ajay Kumar-Under Secretary to the Government of India for i) violation of the specific directions and wilful non compliance of the Commission's orders, ii) causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information and iii) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Reply from the Noticee- Sh. Ajay Kumar should reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the date of hearing.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 6 of 6