Central Information Commission
Kamal vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 16 November, 2023
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/MOYAS/A/2O23/117318
KAMAL ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Gymnastics Federation of India,
Chingamakha, Yanglem,
Lehkai, Singjamei - 795008,
Imphal, Manipur .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2023 & 30/10/2023
Date of Interim Decision : 27/09/2023
Date of Final Decision : 02/11/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 17/12/2022 (Interim)
First appeal filed on : 06/01/2023
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/04/2023
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. The copies of correspondence received from FIG regarding complaint of Ms. Aruna Reddy & the copies of replies sent to FIG.
2. The copies of correspondence received from Mr. Ashish Kumar regarding review of his performance during the trails held at IG Stadium, New Delhi for international participation of Indian Team.
3. The copies of protest letters received from individual Gymnasts during selection trials of Artistic & Rhythmic Gymnastics held at IG stadium for international participation.
4. The copies of correspondence received from FIG as regards to suspension of Ms. Deepa Karmakar in doping test.
5. The copies of correspondence received from DG/SAI in connection with the action taken against Mr. Rohit Jaiswal.
6. The copies of complaint letters received from FIG about removal of Mr. Dipak Kabra from judges' panel during Tokyo Olympic Games, 2020.
7. The action taken by Executive committee or General council of GFI on the said complaint of Mr. Dipak Kabra.
8. The action taken by the Executive committee or General council of federation on the complaint letter received from Mr. Gyain Singh, the then treasurer of GFI."
The General Secretary & CPIO forwarded a copy of the RTI Application to the President, GFI vide a letter dated 17.12.2022 for furnishing the information directly to the Appellant.
Having not received any response from the CPIO thereafter, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 27.09.2023:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Syed Rehan in person. Respondent: Not present.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the Appellant, a gymnast, was removed from the Association based on some complaint from a fellow gymnast and all of the information sought for pertains to the same issue. He further stated that the CPIO & FAA have till date not bothered to provide any information and therefore it is his insistence that penal action should be initiated in the matter in addition to providing the desired information.
Interim Decision on 27.09.2023:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record takes grave exception to the fact that the CPIO has failed to provide any information except for marking a copy of the RTI Application to the President, GFI vide a letter dated 17.12.2022. Now, as it appears from the website of the GFI, the General Secretary is the designated CPIO and the President is the designated FAA under the RTI Act. The act of the CPIO in marking the RTI Application to the FAA is a sheer mockery of the mandate of the RTI Act and later the FAA leaving the First Appeal prima-facie unattended is akin to 'adding insult to injury'.
The General Secretary & CPIO vide an email of 27.09.2023 has expressed his inability to submit any arguments in the matter or to present himself before the Commission during the hearing owing to the alleged last-minute receipt of the hearing notice and the perpetuating situation of unrest in the State of Manipur leading to curfews and internet ban.
Even if the CPIO's stand is viewed liberally, the fact remains that the instant RTI Application was filed way back in Dec. 2022 and yet NO final reply has been issued to the Appellant in the intervening period even if the period of unrest is not counted for in the averred omission. Similarly, the President & FAA of GFI is located in New Delhi itself, yet no effort appears to have been made by the CPIO to arrange for the FAA to represent the case before the bench.
Having considered the totality of the adverse findings in the matter so far, the Commission directs the General Secretary & CPIO to appear before the bench on 3 16.10.2023 via video conference (time and venue of the hearing will be intimated by the registry attached with this bench) to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the failure to provide any information or final reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act after the issuance of the interim reply of 17.12.2022.
The CPIO is also required to send a proper written submission explaining his defence in the matter atleast 48 hours prior to the scheduled date of hearing. In addition to this, the CPIO shall also submit a draft reply to each point of the instant RTI Application to the Commission along with his above said written submissions for perusal and determination of relief to be ordered in the matter.
Further, the FAA is directed to appear in person before the bench on 16.10.2023 to explain the prima-facie inaction on the instant First Appeal as well as the fate of the letter addressed to him on 17.12.2022. In the event that, the FAA is NOT available in New Delhi office on the averred date, he is duty bound to contact the registry attached with this bench duly in advance for scheduling a video conference slot in whichever station he is available at. The failure of the FAA to present himself during the show-cause hearing will compel the Commission to fix his responsibility in the matter in the capacity of a "deemed CPIO" by virtue of the communication addressed to him on 17.12.2022 by the General Secretary/CPIO for proceeding under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
No further liberties shall be granted to the CPIO or the FAA in the matter with respect to their appearance before the bench. Any laxity or failure to comply with the directions contained above may attract ex-parte imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant is at liberty to participate in the hearing scheduled on 16.10.2023 at New Delhi in person or through his authorised representative.
The appeal is reserved for final order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Syed Rehan in person.4
Respondent: Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh, General Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference assisted by Advocate, Sunil Parashar in person; Sudhir Mittal, FAA assisted by Advocate Beno Bencigar and S P Kashif in person.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated in distress that the Respondent office has not yet bothered to file any written submissions or any draft reply as was directed in the Interim Order. The Advocate desired to highlight the laxity with which the Respondent office is continuing to deal with RTI matters. In this backdrop and for want of any information with respect to the instant RTI Application till date i.e until around one year since the request for information was received by the CPIO, the Advocate urged that the Respondent office may be imposed with maximum penalty.
As for the Respondent, Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh, General Secretary & CPIO was present on audio conference, he barely made any submission. Advocate, Sunil Parashar spoke for the CPIO and after being questioned about the written submissions that was directed to be submitted in the Interim Order, placed on record a judgment dated 26.05.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rahul Mehra vs. Union of India without bothering to explain what is contained in the judgment. Upon a query from the Commission, the Advocate stated that para 7 of the judgment is relevant to observe that the Court has withdrawn all concessions/benefits extended to the National Sports Federations. For understanding the cryptic explanation of the Advocate, the Commission referred to the contents of the said para 7 which reads as under:
"7. Various judgments have held that compliance with the Sports Code is a must. It is the sine qua non for grant of recognition as a NSF and for access to the corollary benefits that flow from such status. The benefits are in various forms: tax benefits, travel concessions, accommodation and hospitality accorded to players and officials of NSFs, use of government-owned stadia and sports facilities, etc. All this expense is made from public funds. The beneficiary of such funds and facilities must qualify in law, to access it. Unless a NSF/sports entity/registered society/Association strictly adheres to and fully complies with the Sports Code and the court orders, it would disentitle itself from any such benefit. There can be no let-up or latitude in this regard, as relaxation would be arbitrary, illegal and lend to dilution of the Sports Code. No NSF or Sports Entity should be seen to be receiving benefits which are unjust. Fairness and legitimacy need to imbue all governmental affairs.
Therefore, it is prudent, indeed imperative that no further exemptions be granted to or lenience be shown to non- compliant NSFs. There comes a stage in the affairs of governance when the recalcitrant have to be called-out and there has to be cessation of their unlawfully enjoying government largesse, a privilege for which they do not qualify. Nor can they be allowed with their faulty NSF status to generate revenues from other sources. Twelve years 5 is a long time to enable sports bodies to conform to the Sports Code. The time to stop is now."
Quoting the above reference, the Advocate of the CPIO & FAA desired for the bench to also consider if GFI is to be considered as a public authority or not and that it must not be considered as one. To this, the Commission pointed out that the question of declaring GFI as a public authority is not arising in the instant matter at this stage when there is a designated CPIO & FAA in GFI who are being proceeded against for non-compliance to the provisions of the RTI Act and if GFI has any qualms about being a public authority, it has to pursue the same through appropriate channel.
In addition to the above, the Advocate of the CPIO as well as the FAA sought to explain at length that the GFI was de-recognized by the Sports Ministry in the year 2011 because of infighting in the body, and since then it remained so untill the year 2021, however, the Ministry did not accord acceptance to the election of Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh as General Secretary over violation of Sports Code, against which Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh approached the Manipur High Court and the matter is pending as on date.
Further, the Advocate of the CPIO strongly argued that as for the role of Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh, General Secretary & CPIO is concerned, since he took prompt action on the RTI Application by forwarding it to the FAA for taking necessary action as he had no access to the desired for records, the Commission may not proceed against Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh, General Secretary & CPIO adversely. The Advocate further cited certain judgments of the Delhi High Court to urge that the CPIO did not act unreasonably or caused any deliberate omission to attract the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The FAA on the other hand argued that it is not appropriate to claim that Dr. Shanti Kumar Singh, General Secretary & CPIO did not have the relevant records as the email access of GFI is available to him. Upon a severe rebuke by the Commission against the CPIO & FAA for shifting the onus of the omission to each other and for failing to even comply with the directions to file a draft reply as contained in the Interim Decision, the FAA submitted that they would earnestly comply with the directions if they are accorded a little more time as they wanted to bring out the above-mentioned issues to the bench.
DECISION 6 The Commission after hearing the contentions of the Advocate of the CPIO and the FAA is baffled to note the extent of internal bickering and lack of camaraderie amongst the office bearers of GFI. The fact that the FAA and CPIO were accompanied by three advocates on record and yet none of the advocates seemed to have bothered to advice the CPIO or the FAA to file any written submissions in the matter till date and not even file a draft reply in compliance with the Interim Decision speaks volumes about the intent of the Respondent office in dealing with RTI matters and about their commitment to transparency laws.
Now, as a last opportunity, the CPIO & FAA are hereby directed to ensure that a proper point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application is provided to the Appellant subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, it may be noted that having considered the fact that the RTI Application was lying pending with the FAA since 17.12.2022 and the FAA having submitted that the election of Dr. Shanti Kumar Sing to the post of General Secretary & CPIO remains under contention, the FAA is also being deemed as the CPIO in the instant matter. By virtue of being the deemed CPIO, the FAA is strictly directed to ensure compliance of the above directions and any failure in this regard will attract maximum penalty prescribed under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) 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 / 7 Copy to:
President & FAA (Under RTI Act) Appellate Authority, RTI Cell Gymnastics Federation of India. C-4/2, Ground Floor, Safdarjung Development Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016
--(For strict compliance of above directions) 8