Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 11 June, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629502/00853
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629502
In the matter of:
Mohit Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprasth Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 15/02/2018 First appeal filed on : 17/03/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 17/04/2018 Second Appeal dated : 24/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 10/06/2019 Date of Decision : 10/06/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present alongwith Mr. Narvinder Thakran, Advocate. Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Secretary & CPIO, Mrs. Seema Gerotra, JD & FAA alongwith Ms Shaleen Suneja, Deputy Director & Shri S K Garg.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the list of dates in year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 of the meetings of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Also provide the following information relating thereto:1
1.1 Provide the attendance sheet of the members attending the said council meeting.
1.2 Provide the list of absentee members who didn't attend the said council meetings.
1.3 Provide the copy of the Minutes of the said Council Meetings along with specific web page link where the same are electronically uploaded. 1.4 Provide the list of dates of Council meetings which were not held or cancelled.
2. Other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO denying the information while quoting Section 7(9) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that ICAI being a statutory body, the public has a right to know what is going behind the closed doors and if there was any third party information, the same could have been separated from the rest of the information. He also submitted that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing by the First Appellate Authority when he had specially requested for the same.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant as the information was voluminous running into over 1000 pages. He further submitted that the copies of the minutes contained personal information of many third parties and is also voluminous. Had it been related to one or two meetings, the information could have been provided after the application of Section 10 of the RTI Act. However, in the present case, the appellant has sought copies of the minutes of the Council Meetings & Board meetings from year 2010 to 2018 which is very voluminous and in this situation, the information cannot be severed as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is not proper as the CPIO has provided a clubbed response to all the points raised in the RTI application.2
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629502 The CPIO also seems to have claimed two defences for denying the sought for information, one the fact of the information to be supplied as being voluminous and the other, being exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO should note that in such situations where the information is voluminous, the proper course is to provide an offer of inspection to the appellant. However, the CPIO submitted that the reply is more specific in regard to points no 1.3 &
2.3 where the appellant has sought copies of the minutes of the Council Meetings for the year 2010 to 2018 and he has submitted that this information being very voluminous and the fact that , the information cannot be severed as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, hence exemption was claimed u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
With regard to points no 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 & 2.4, the appellant has sought attendance details of the members who had/had not attended the said council/Board meetings and the list of dates of the said Council/ Board or committee meetings. It is noted that the attendance of the employees is not personal information as this information is provided by individuals in fulfilment of statutory requirements and will not be covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
At this point, the Commission relies on an order passed by a coordinate bench in the matter of Om Prakash Vs Delhi Transport Corporation dated 28.10.2010, File No CIC/SG/A/2009/002969 wherein the follwong observation has been made:
"The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all humanbeings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to 3 constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy. Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone tapping."
With regard to points no 1.3 & 2.3 of the RTI application, the Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO that the copies of the minutes of the Council Meetings & Board meetings from year 2010 to 2018 contains personal information of many third parties and thus is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(!)(j) of the RTI Act and the information also being so voluminous and in that situation, the information cannot be severed u/s 10 of the RTI Act as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence no relief can be provided on these points.
It is also brought to the notice of the FAA that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in line with the principles of natural justice. As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the 4 File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629502 RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra, stated, Civil Appeal No.9095/2012 has made the following observation:
Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the relevant records with regard to points no 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 & 2.4 of the RTI application (and screen off the information which may be related to third parties or which are otherwise exempted under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act) as available on the records of the Institute at a mutually decided date and time to be duly intimated to the appellant telephonically and in writing. Copies of documents, if desired, should be provided to the appellant free of cost upto 10 pages, and the prescribed fee shall be charged for pages beyond the said limit. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days of the receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.
It is also brought to the notice of the FAA that although the Right to Information (RTI) Act or the rules made thereunder do not prescribe in detail the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority in dealing with first appeals, by convention, the Appellate Authority should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. Therefore, the Commission would like the Appellate Authority to bear this in mind and, whenever any such request is made, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
5
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
6