Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Department Of Home on 6 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2023/605458
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Home
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.10.2022
PIO replied on : 23.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 14.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 05.04.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Under section 74 of Indian Evidence Act, every public documents be in official website, keeping in view, under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, read with RTI Act, supply complete details, MoU and agreements signed, Inquiry reports, orders issued and action taken for criminal offence, if any, with present status, related to:
1. Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF), a non-governmental organisation linked with the Gandhi family, had its Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) license revoked by the Centre for alleged violation of the foreign funding law. License of Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust (RGCT) has also been cancelled. Both the organisations cannot receive foreign funding anymore.
2. Objections with evidences, against said both establishments.
3. Both establishments, responsible for breach of public trust with criminal conspiracy, complete details about all trustees of both establishments with their movable and immovable properties, in India and abroad, both establishments as well.
Page 1
4. Complete details about litigations of both establishments, as stated above."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022.
PIO has furnished reply vide letter dated 23.03.2023 stating that the information sought is exempted from discloure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
In regard to First Appeal, the FAA vide order dated 05.04.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 01.05.2025 has been received from the CPIO, Foreigners -II Division, Ministry of Home and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
As per provisions contained under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. exemption from disclosure of certain information has been provided such as "information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information". It is kindly informed that any action on the subject matter is processed after taking inputs from the field agency i.e. Central Security Agency and the Central Security Agency is listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore, exempted from the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Hence the contents/material of such investigations cannot be disclosed as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. It is submitted that the appellant has sought progress of investigation and action taken report with present status. In this regard, it is conveyed that it is well established that CPIO is not required to create or compile the information. Further, CPIO is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. A.K. Mitra, Deputy Secretary, CPIO- Foreigners Division-II MHA- participated in the hearing - participated in the hearing Page 2 The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Page 3 Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)