Central Information Commission
Budharam Vishnoi vs Medical Council Of India on 12 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/604508-BJ
Mr. Budharam Vishnoi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Medical Council of India
Sector 8, Pocket - 14
Phase - 1, Dwarka
New Delhi - 110077
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2019
Date of Decision : 12.03.2019
Date of RTI application 07.06.2017
CPIO's response 26.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 26.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 01.08.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the status of six months sonography course and its validity in India, whether six months trained sonologist were eligible to open a sonography centre in India; details of the Institute in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi, providing 6 months sonography training etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.06.2017 informed that the MCI is a statutory authority to maintain minimum standards of medical education in Medical Colleges in India and the India Medical Register. It was further suggested to approach the concerned authority of the Central or State Government in this regard. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.08.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:Page 1 of 4
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Surendra Choudhary Appellant's representative, through VC; Respondent: Mr. Shikhar Ranjan, Law Officer;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that although he had received the response of the CPIO / FAA, he remained dissatisfied. The Respondent explained the updated status as indicated in its written submission. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 07.03.2019 wherein it was submitted that the MCI is a statutory authority created and constituted by the Central Government under an Act of Parliament, namely Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is a body constituted under the provisions of the Act and has been given inter alia the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of minimum standards of medical education throughout the Country. It was further submitted that with the promulgation of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 and Indian Medical Council (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 on 26.09.2018 and 21.02.2019, the Council constituted by the Central Government has been superseded by the BOG. A seven-member Board of Governors has assumed Office on 26.09.2019. This Board is vested with the responsibility of Council, as also that of Central Government regarding grant of permission to Medical Colleges for running courses in modern medicine. It was thus reiterated that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of minimum standards in medical education in the Country, by provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior approval of the Central Government to frame regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. Furthermore, in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the IMC Act, the MCI had framed the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The goal of the Postgraduate Regulations inter alia is to produce competent specialists and/or medical teachers. For such purposes, the Regulations had provided for Diploma, MD/MS courses in broad specialty and DM/M. Ch Courses in Super Speciality courses. The Duration of Diploma course is two years while that of MD / MS or DM / M. Ch courses is three years. On perusal of the provisions of Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, the "Sonography" courses are not envisaged under the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. Since, these courses are not falling within the mandate of the Medical Council of India, the Council is not required to hold information in respect of these courses and the same was intimated to the Appellant in response to his RTI application as well First Appeal. It was further informed that the matters relating to PCPNDT Act, 1994, including the issues related to courses in Sonography is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 16657-16659 of 2016, in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association and Others, which was filed by the Union of India against the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 349 of 2006. It was also informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the SLP filed by the Union of India has stayed the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, till the final disposition of the case. A copy of the order dated 14.03.2018 was enclosed for the reference of the Commission. It was further articulated that the Commission in a similar subject matter in the case of Dr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs. CPIO, MCI and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, PNDT Section (in Appeal No. CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/150232-BJ) dated 12.02.2019 disposed off the Appeal stating that the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was informed that a copy of the written submission had been e-mailed to the Appellant also.Page 2 of 4
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged Page 3 of 4 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 12.03.2019
Page 4 of 4