Central Information Commission
Tushar Kanti vs Department Of Higher Education on 14 December, 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/DHEDU/A/2020/122793
Tushar Kanti ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Higher Education,
RTI Cell, Room No. 106A, C Wing,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
CPIO
Sainik School Society,
Ministry of Defence, RTI Cell,
Room No. 101, D-1 wing, Sena
Bhawan, K.Kamaraj Road, Near &
Udyog Bhavan Metro, Vijay Chowk
Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 11001.
CPIO
Directorate General NCC,
RTI Cell, M/o Defence, West Block-4,
R K Puram, New Delhi - 110066. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 24/11/2021
Date of Decision : 08/12/2021
1
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/09/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 01/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 24/02/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/07/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2019 with CPIO, MHRD seeking the following information:
(1) Whether it is a fact that the Government is planning to promote "Patriotism/Desh Bhakti" among the Students fraternity to make New India "Corruption-Free", if so, details thereof and if not, reasons therefor; (2) Whether it is a fact that the Government is working on providing "quality"
education to Students to increase the " Patriotism/ Professionalism/ Employability" among the School children;
(3) If so, details thereof, indicating the inclusion of (1) NCC in the School curriculum for -Classes IX-X-XI-XII for making "Gentleman" Students and to inculcate LEADERSHIP quality among Students, (2) regular coaching in Sports (mainly Athletics and Gymnastics which are Mother of all games and sports) for all Upper Primary Classes by professional/trained coaches to create National/International Sports Stars and (3) regular training in Vocal/Instrumental Music and Dance by trained teachers to create Music Professionals for National/International arena in the Entertainment world. (4) Whether Government is aware of/has any information, in material form, that the (1) Entertainment and (2) Sports Industries are recession-free; if so, details thereof indicating the efforts already and being taken to engage professionals to create Professionals on these subjects. (5) Whether Government would be able to achieve this target of opening NCC Units in all Schools in the country in the backdrop of lack of adequate infrastructure manpower and funds.
(6) If so, provide details in respect of infrastructure and funds for NCC and other Youth Development-Programmes.
(7) If not, reasons for such lackadaisical attitude of the Government to spread NCC in all Schools in the country.
2(8) Whether Government has any detail State-wise data, in material form, in respect of - (1) Number of Sr./Higher Secondary Schools in India (both Boys and Girls inclusive), (2) Number of Students (both Boys and Girls inclusive) in all those Schools, (3) Number of NCC Units required to cover all those Students/Schools, .(4) Number of NCC Units available at present, (5) Number of NCC Units required to be opened to cover the uncovered number of Schools, (6) quantum of additional estimated recurring and non-recurring yearly expenditure for (5) above, (7) quantum of Budget Grant, at present, for Plan Expenditure for NCC Directorate, (8) quantum of recurring and non-recurring yearly expenditure for opening a "Sainik School", (.9) cost effectiveness of the proposals at (5) and (8) above, (10) number of Students enter into Defence and Para-Military Services through NCC and that of "Sainik Schools"
(9) Whether it is a fact that the Government is planning to transfer NCC Directorate from Ministry of Defence to MoHRD.
(10) If so, details thereof indicating the time frame. (11) If not, reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act-2005 (i.e. Every Public Authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons) therefor since it is a matter of Education & Training And MoD is trying to offload it.
The CPIO, MHRD furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.10.2019 to points no. 1 & 2 of the RTI Application and for remaining points the RTI Application was transferred to other concerned public authorities.
Subsequently, on 27.11.2019, CPIO, Sainik Schools Society, MoD provided the following information against Point Nos. 8-10 of the RTI application:
Point 8(8):- The average coast for opening of a new Sainik Schools is approx. 100 Crore (actual cost differs from State to State)Recurring cost is about 2-3 Crore per annum.
Point 8(9):- Information is not available.
Point 8(10):- The subject of the information sought by you with respect to Point No.8(10) is closely relates to AU Sainik Schools. Therefore, the above RTI application is hereby transferred to CPIO & Principal, all Sainik School under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for taking appropriate action at your end. You are, therefore, requested to correspond with them directly in respect of Point No. 8(10) of your above said RTI application.
3The CPIO, DGNCC furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.12.2019 against point Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI application.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2020 with the FAA, MHRD. FAA's order dated 24.02.2020 stated as follows:-
".........the CPIO (PN-II) of MHRD has already furnished the available information in respect of point Nos. (i) and (ii) of the RTI application and the Appellate Authority is of view that the information sought vide (iii) to (xi) is not associated with the functioning of CPIO (PN-II)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent No.1: D.T. Pali (US) & CPIO alongwith Rajesh Samplay (US) & CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: Shailesh Rana, US & CPIO present through audio conference. Respondent No.3: Cmde Viresh Das, CMDE (P& C) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant at the outset requested the bench to apprise him of the subject matter of the RTI Application. Subsequently, he argued that Respondent No.1 merely transferred the RTI Application without providing any substantial information. He further harped on the factual context of the information sought for in the RTI Application even as the Commission observed that extensive replies have been provided to him by all the concerned public authorities despite the fact that his queries merely seek clarifications.
Decision:
The Commission observes upon a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal only against MHRD and therefore the same is not maintainable against Respondent No.2 & 3.4
Further, the Commission 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. As regards the contention of the Appellant regarding the transfer of the RTI Application by MHRD, adequate clarification has been provided by Respondent No.1 in their written submissions dated 22.11.2021, copy of which is endorsed to the Appellant.
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 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) With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6