Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 3 June, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101586
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101587
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106755
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106744
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106745
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106748
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106749
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106752
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106754
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106753
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106747
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106750
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106751
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106742
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106743
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106741
Smt. Nutan Thakur ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
PIO
Do&PT
PIO,
CVC
Date of Hearing : 01.06.2021
Date of Decision : 03.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since all the present batch of Appeals is filed by the same Appellant and
the issues raised in all the RTI applications relate to the appointment and
removal of Shri Alok Verma, Former CBI Director and Shri Rakesh Asthana,
Former Special Director, CBI, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Page 1 of 20
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
101586 10.10.2019 12.12.2019 11.12.2019 27.12.2019 09.01.2020
101587 10.10.2019 12.12.2019 10.12.2019 27.12.2019 09.06.2020
106755 10.10.2019 - 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106744 10.10.2019 08.11.2019 10.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106745 10.10.2019 08.11.2019 09.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106748 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106749 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106752 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 10.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106754 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106753 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106747 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106750 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106751 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106742 10.10.2019 08.11.2019 10.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106743 10.10.2019 08.11.2019 10.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
106741 10.10.2019 15.11.2019 11.12.2019 - 10.02.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101586 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Sri Alok Verma, a 1979 batch AGMUT Cadre IPS officer was previously posted in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as its Director. He was first sent on forced leave and then unceremoniously removed around 10/01/2019. Later he refused to join his new posting as DG, Fire Service. As per media reports, various Departmental Enquiries were initiated against him during this period, for various extremely serious allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1. How many Departmental Enquiries were initiated against Sri Verma after 01/08/2018.
2. How many other Enquiries were initiated against Sri Verma after 01/08/2018.
3. Kindly provide a copy of the official orders as regards each of these Departmental Enquiries/other enquiries.
4. What is the present stage of each of these Departmental Enquiries/other enquiries
5. If these Departmental Enquiries and other enquiries have been completed, have the enquiry reports been presented to the Government. If yes, kindly provide a copy of these Enquiry reports.
6. What actions have been taken by the Government as regards these Enquiry reports.
7. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence) of Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as regards each of these Departmental Enquiries/other enquiries.Page 2 of 20
Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019. Subsequently, the CPIO/Director (Police) vide letter dated 12.12.2019 replied as under:-
The FAA vide order dated 27.12.2019 stated as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101587 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points:-Page 3 of 20
Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. Subsequently, the CPIO/Director (Police) vide letter dated 12.12.2019 replied as under:-
The FAA vide order dated 27.12.2019 stated as under:-Page 4 of 20
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106755 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 before the CPIO, DoP&T seeking information on the following 07 points:-
Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106744 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 05 points regarding Sri Alok Verma:-Page 5 of 20
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 08.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO. In this context, letter dated 23.10.2019 of Shri S P R Tripathi Under Secretay/CPIO, DoP&T may also be referred to."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106745 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-Page 6 of 20
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 08.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO. In this context, letter dated 23.10.2019 of Shri S P R Tripathi Under Secretay/CPIO, DoP&T may also be referred to."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106748 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 05 points regarding Sri Alok Verma:-
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards Sri Verma as presented for his selection as CBI Chief.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as regards Sri Verma as presented before the Competent authority for his selection as CBI Chief.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as regards Sri Verma as presented before the Competent authority for his selection as CBI Chief.
4. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that selected/appointed Sri Verma as CBI Chief.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of DOPT as regards the above appointment of Sri Verma.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the Page 7 of 20 undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106749 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Sri Alok Verma, a 1979 batch IPS officer of the AGMUT cadre, was former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from 01/02/2017 to 10/01/2019 and was removed by high-powered committee consisting of the prime minister, the chief justice and the leader of the Opposition through its meeting on 10/01/2019.
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the CBI presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
4. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
5. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that removed Sri Verma as CBI Chief.
6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of DOPT as regards the above meeting and subsequent removal of Sri Verma.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106752 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 before CVC seeking information on the following 05 points regarding Sri Alok Verma :-Page 8 of 20
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards Sri Verma as presented for his selection as CBI Chief.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as regards Sri Verma as presented before the Competent authority for his selection as CBI Chief.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as regards Sri Verma as presented before the Competent authority for his selection as CBI Chief.
4. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that selected/appointed Sri Verma as CBI Chief.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of CVC as regards the above appointment of Sri Verma.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(9) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106754 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 before CPIO, DoP&T seeking following information on 06 points regarding the high powered committee meeting held on 10.01.2019 for the removal of Sri Alok Verma as Director, CBI:-
The CPIO/Under Secretary, MHA vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-Page 9 of 20
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(10) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106753 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Sri Alok Verma, a 1979 batch IPS officer of the AGMUT cadre, was former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from 01/02/2017 to 10/01/2019 and was removed by high-powered committee consisting of the prime minister, the chief justice and the leader of the Opposition through its meeting on 10/01/2019.
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the CBI presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
4. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) presented for this meeting on 10/01/2019 or around.
5. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that removed Sri Verma as CBI Chief.
6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of CVC as regards the above meeting and subsequent removal of Sri Verma.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 10 of 20
(11) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106747 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking following information on 06 points regarding Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was former Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation from 01/02/2017 to 19/01/2019.
1. Kindly provide Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
2. Kindly provide Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
4. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that selected/appointed Sri Asthana as Special Director.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of DOPT as regards the above appointment of Sri Asthana.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(12) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106750 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was former Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from 01/02/2017 to 19/01/2019 and was removed from CBI suddenly on or around 19/01/2019 in view of extreme exigencies and public interest.
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the CBI presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
4. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
5. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting, if any such formal meeting was held, that removed Sri Asthana from CBI.Page 11 of 20
6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of CVC as regards the above removal of Sri Asthana.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(13) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106751 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the foloowing 05 points:-
Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was former Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation from 01/02/2017 to 19/01/2019.
1. Kindly provide Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
2. Kindly provide Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as regards Sri Asthana as presented for his appointment as Special Director.
4. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting that selected/appointed Sri Asthana as Special Director.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of CVC as regards the above appointment of Sri Asthana.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 12 of 20
(14) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106742 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was former Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation from 01/02/2017 to 19/01/2019 and was removed from CBI suddenly on or around 19/01/2019 in view of extreme exigencies and public interest.
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the CBI presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
4. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
5. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting, if any such formal meeting was held, that removed Sri Asthana from CBI.
6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of MHA as regards the above removal of Sri Asthana.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 08.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(15) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106743 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 05 points:-Page 13 of 20
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 08.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO. In this context, letter dated 23.10.2019 of Shri S P R Tripathi Under Secretay/CPIO, DoP&T may also be referred to."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(16) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106741 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was former Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation from 01/02/2017 to 19/01/2019 and was removed from CBI suddenly on or around 19/01/2019 in view of extreme exigencies and public interest. Kindly provide the following information about him in larger public interest-
1. Kindly provide the Noting of the CBI presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
2. Kindly provide the Noting of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
3. Kindly provide the Noting of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.
4. Kindly provide the Noting of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) presented for removal of Sri Asthana from CBI.Page 14 of 20
5. Kindly provide copy of the minutes of the meeting, if any such formal meeting was held, that removed Sri Asthana from CBI.
6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence with various offices) of DOPT as regards the above removal of Sri Asthana.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 15.11.2019 replied as under:-
"The required information documents/Correspondence/Files noting does not vest in the MHA. Thus, copies of such documents cannot be provided by the undersigned CPIO." The RTI application was also transferred to the Director CVC and US, DoP&T. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the queries raised in the RTI applications pertain to the appointment and removal of Shri Alok Verma, Former Director, CBI and Shri Rakesh Asthana, Former Special Director, CBI and should have been disclosed in the larger public interest as the situation at that point of time in CBI was unprecedented. Moreover, completely arbitrary and improper actions including departmental decisions were made in contravention of the existing norms/ rules and regulations which was directly linked with corruption and corrupt practices at the highest level. While referring to the reply of the CPIO, MHA, the Appellant stated that in Second Appeal Nos CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101586 and CIC/MHOME/A/2020/101587, the information was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as there existed larger public for disclosure of information regarding public activities of a public servant. He further stated that for the remaining matters, the application was simply transferred to CVC and DoP&T on the ground that they may be the custodians of information. The CVC also did not disclose any information on the ground that the same was not available with them. The Appellant also objected to the response of the DoP&T where exemption was claimed on the ground that the file relating to appointment/ removal of Shri Verma and Shri Asthana was secret in nature. The Appellant thus prayed that in the interest of transparency and accountability, the information should be disclosed.
The Respondent represented by Shri Anant Kishore Sharan, Director (Police), M/o Home Affairs, Shri Sanjay Chaurasia, US, AVD-2B, DoP&T, Shri S P R Tripathi, CPIO, RTI Cell, DoP&T and Smt Shipra Sharma, CPIO and Director, CVC participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Anant Kishore Sharan Page 15 of 20 stated that an incorrect statement was made by the Appellant in para 9 of the Second Appeal in CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106755 wherein it was mentioned that no response was received from MHA. He stated that the said RTI application was not addressed to the MHA hence no reply was given by MHA. As regards the other matters, he stated that the Appellant resorted to filing multiple identical RTI applications regarding appointment and removal of Shri Alok Verma and Shri Rakesh Asthana which were replied to suitably. Exemption was claimed u/s 8 (1)
(j) for the information available with the public authority pertaining to departmental inquiries against the officers. Regarding the other queries, the application was transferred to the CVC/ DoP&T. He further referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE and Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 on the issue of repetitive RTI applications filed by the Appellant causing disproportionate diversion of their resources.
Shri SPR Tripathi stated that replies were provided to the Appellant in all the cases. He referred to the replies dated 23.10.2019 wherein with regard to the information regarding the appointment/ removal of Shri Alok Verma, it was informed that the same did not vest with the DoP&T. Similarly, vide another reply dated 23.10.2019, the Appellant was informed that the file containing the information has been marked as secret. However, a copy of departmental order appointing Shri Rakesh Asthana as Special Director (CBI) was provided to the Appellant. He referred to another reply dated 27.10.2019 wherein regarding removal of Shri Rakesh Asthana, the Appellant was informed that the documents do not vest with the DoP&T. A copy of the aforementioned replies which were not enclosed with the Second Appeal were provided through email to the Commission after the hearing.
In addition, Shri Sanjay Chaurasia from DoP&T also stated that replies were provided to the RTI applications where information regarding disciplinary proceedings against Shri Alok Verma was sought. Subsequent to the hearing he forwarded a copy of replies dated 01.11.2019 and 03.01.2020 where such information was denied u/s 8 (1) (j) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He also reiterated the issue of multiple RTI applications filed on identical issues by the Appellant resulting in wastage of time and resources of the public authority.
Smt Shipra Sharma stated that replies were provided to the RTI applications on the appointment/ removal of Shri Alok Verma and removal of Shri Rakesh Asthana. Subsequent to the hearing she forwarded a copy of the replies wherein vide letter dated 10.10.2019 it was conveyed that information regarding selection of Shri Verma was not available with CVC and the application was transferred to the DoP&T. Thereafter, vide reply dated 14.10.2019, while replying to the application seeking information regarding appointment of Shri Verma exemption u/s 8 (1) of the Act was claimed. Subsequently vide reply dated 25.10.2019 regarding the RTI application seeking information regarding removal of Shri Asthana, it was stated that the information is not available with CVC.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission at the outset observes that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information that is held and available with a Public Page 16 of 20 Authority can be disclosed. The CPIO cannot be expected to create any information or collate documents which are not part of their existing record. The Commission also observes that information regarding appointment/ disciplinary proceedings/ removal of a third party employee cannot be disclosed as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 unless a larger public interest is justified which has not been established in the present instance.
The Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
Even if the Commission were to reluctantly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, however noble the purpose of this vigorous attempt to bring about probity in the functioning of CBI, the fact remains that the means adopted by him by inundating the Public Authority with multiple RTI cases unfortunately only points to the ignorance of the Appellant about the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the Page 17 of 20 system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combatting corruption.
In this context it is also a fact that the Appellant has filed a plethora of second appeals in the Commission against multiple public authorities, clearly aimed at inundating them with requests for information.
The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 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 beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied 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, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 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 Page 18 of 20 witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."
The aforesaid dicta essentially prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that her right to information is not absolute.
The Apex Court in a vital decision has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency.
However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.." (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................Page 19 of 20
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............................. 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..."
Emphasis supplied Thus, in the light of the above mentioned observations, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters and the Second Appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 20 of 20