Central Information Commission
Kalyan Halder vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 4 June, 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/LOKSS/A/2025/616823.
Shri. KALYAN HALDER. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025
Date of Decision : 02.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2025
PIO replied on : 17.03.2025
First Appeal filed on : 17.03.2025
First Appellate Order on : 11.04.2025
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 16.04.2025
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2025 seeking information on following points:
"SUBJECT I Kalyan Halder filing RTI application to the lok sabha secretariat under section 6 bracket 3 of RTI act 2005 with a request to transfer my RTI application to another public authority that is the speaker of lok sabha.
I kalyan halder want to seek information under section 6 bracket 3 of RTI act 2005 about the function of the lok sabha speaker om birla ji that permit the moving of various kinds of motions and resolutions such as a motion of no confidence as removing the current prime minister of india is necessary under article 74 bracket 1. OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT According to the Indian Constitution if a Prime Minister does not follow the Constitution they can be removed from office through a vote of no confidence passed by a majority of the Lok Sabha House of the People essentially meaning they lose the confidence of the Parliament and must resign this is the primary mechanism to hold the Prime Minister accountable for not adhering to the constitutional framework. RTI application filed before lok sabha speaker to vote for no confidence motion as prime minister of india narendra modi ji is not following the article 136 and article 142 bracket 2 of the Indian constitution and section 2 bracket b of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 of the Indian constitution should be issued by the judges of supreme court of india to Page 1 the special executive magistrate for not following the judgement made by the supreme court of india about period or time for executing peace bond not exceeding more than one year under section 107 crpc judgement made by supreme court of india in Mithya and Ors Vs State of rajasthan and Ors 1987 1 WLN 343 case heard at supreme court where judgement given is The court in this case said that the ceiling period under section 107 may be for any time lesser than one year but not more than that but in my case the special executive magistrate has executed peace bond from kalyan halder and anita halder for more than one year in the year 2019 and again in the year 2023 without doing any enquiry under section 116 crpc other details in brief mentioning below."
The CPIO vide letter dated 17.03.2025 replied as under:-
"With reference to your Application dated 27.01.2025 bearing registration number LOKSS/R/E/25/00077, I am directed to state that instead of seeking information held by the Public Authority, the Applicant has expressed his views regarding moving of motions in the House by the Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha.
2. Such matter does not come under the purview of section 2(f) the RTI Act, 2005 and Lok Sabha Secretariat.
3. However, all information related to Lok Sabha is available on the official website, www.loksabha.nic.in."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2025. The FAA, Additional Secretary vide order dated 11.04.2025 stated as under :-
"5. The CPIO's reply as well as the contention of the Appellant in the First Appeal have been taken on record.
6. I have gone through the contents of RTI Application and information/reply provided to the applicant. The matter raised in RTI Application is neither covered under definition of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 nor connected to the functioning of this Secretariat in any way. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO on RTI Application was in order and there is nothing to add in this regard at this stage. Appellant is advised to visit the website of this office (https://sansad.in/ls) before filing RTI application in relation to functioning of this Secretariat and seek specific/ pin pointed information available in the records of this office. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is rejected.
7. The Appeal has been considered within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and stands disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present over call Respondent: Shri Girdhari Lal, Deputy Secretary and Shri Yogender Kumar Indu, Under Secretary The written submission of the CPIO were taken on record.
Page 2 Further, submissions were heard.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commissions observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed off.
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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)