Central Information Commission
Dr. Gyanendra Singh vs Niper, Rae Bareli on 30 July, 2024
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. (As per Annexure)
Dr. Gyanendra Singh ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Institute of Pharmaceutical ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Education Research
Lucknow, UP
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of SA
No. Appeal No. RTI CPIO's First FAA's
Application Reply Appeal Order
1. 650950 24.08.2023 22.09.2023 03.10.2023 27.10.2023 04.11.2023
2. 649469 07.08.2023 05.09.2023 21.09.2023 12.10.2023 21.10.2023
3. 649453 07.08.2023 05.09.2023 22.09.2023 12.10.2023 19.09.2023
4. 648660 30.07.2023 28.08.2023 19.09.2023 03.10.2023 19.09.2023
5. 645425 09.07.2023 07.08.2023 23.08.2023 11.09.2023 19.09.2023
6. 645397 09.07.2023 07.08.2023 23.08.2023 11.09.2023 19.09.2023
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 24.07.2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/650950 Page 1 of 15
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Provide any written, verbal or any Information related to the composition and functioning of any committees or bodies responsible for overseeing student discipline and grievances according to the Indian government.
(ii) Please provide information on any reported incidents of violations of the rights to fair trial, treatment, and transparent process for students within NIPER that have taken place over the past 05 years. This includes instances where students have been subjected to any form of unfair treatment, biased evaluation, harassment, or lack of transparent processes.
(iii) Kindly share the documented procedures and guidelines in place within the institution to ensure a fair trial, unbiased treatment, and transparent processes for students. Include any internal codes of conduct, grievance redressal mechanisms, and committees responsible for investigating such violations.
(iv) Share the document if any incidents of misconduct involving professors or staff members are reported. Please provide information on the penalties, punishments, or actions taken against those found guilty. Include details such as suspensions, terminations, warnings, or any other disciplinary measures as per the government policies.
(v) Provide copies in detail of any recent cases where students have been subject to disciplinary actions, including the nature of the allegations, actions taken by the institution, and the process followed during investigation and decision-making.
(vi) Records of communication, both internal and external, related to the recent cases mentioned above, including emails, letters, memorandums, and meeting minutes.Page 2 of 15
(vii) Any documentation or records that demonstrate the measures taken by the institution to ensure transparency, fairness, and due process during disciplinary proceedings involving students as per the government policies.
(viii) Specify the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that are applicable in cases of misconduct involving violations of students rights to fair trial, treatment, and transparent process.
(ix) Transfer this RTI application to the concerned department if the information is not available at your organisation under Sub-section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
(x) Lastly, provide insights or measures that have been taken or planned by the institution to rectify and support the students who have suffered due to the above mentioned violations.
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With reference to Point no.01: Information about the institute's committees is publicly available on the website.
With reference to points no. 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08: No such information is available in the institute.
With reference to points no. 03, 09: As per NIPER-Raebareli Acts & Rules and GoI guidelines.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.11.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/649469 & CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/649453 Page 3 of 15
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Details of any complaints or reports related to caste-based discrimination or violation of minority rights filed against the institution during the past 10 years.
(ii) Information on any disciplinary actions taken against individuals or groups found guilty of caste-based discrimination or violation of minority rights.
(iii) Please include a copy of any relevant government agency regulations or guidelines that have been implemented at your school to address such abuses and safeguard of students rights.
(iv) Provide the procedure for initiating an investigation and construction of committee to enquire the allegations against a professor regarding violations of students right within Articles 14, 15, 16, and Article 30 and others mentioned as above.
(v) Data on the enrollment and representation of students belonging to different castes, religions, and social categories for the past three academic years.
(vi) Details of any previous cases where professors were found to be involved in such violations, including the actions taken against them and the penalties imposed and curb potential insider trading and protect students right with in Articles 14, 15, 16, and Article 30.
(vii) The relevant section(s) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under which the police treat complaints related to these types of violations by any professor.
(viii) Preventive measures and initiatives implemented by the educational institution to ensure that students rights, as mentioned above, are safeguarded and prevent such violations from occurring in the future.
(ix) Any correspondence between the institution and the relevant regulatory bodies or government authorities regarding issues of discrimination and minority rights and other violation as mentioned above.Page 4 of 15
(x) The actions taken by the educational institution to investigate the allegations against the professor and the outcomes of such investigations.
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With reference to point no. 01, 02, 06, 09: No such information is available in the institute.
With reference to points no. 03, 04, 07, 08, 10: As per NIPER-Raebareli Acts & Rules and GoI guidelines.
With reference to points no. 05: Annexure- A attached.
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeals dated 21.09.2023 & 22.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated 21.10.2023 & 19.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/648660
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Provide detailed records of any reported incidents or complaints involving potential violations of students Right to Education and Right to Equality and Equal Opportunity by individual professors within the educational institution has been reported.
(ii) Provide the copy of Information on the policies and guidelines in place to address such violations and protect students rights within the institution.Page 5 of 15
(iii) The procedure for initiating an investigation into allegations against a professor regarding violations of students Right to Education and Right to Equality and Equal Opportunity.
(iv) Details of any previous cases where professors were found to be involved in such violations, including the actions taken against them and the penalties imposed and curb potential insider trading and protect students rights.
(v) Preventive measures and initiatives implemented by the educational institution to ensure that students rights are safeguarded and prevent such violations from occurring in the future.
(vi) The formation and structure of the committee responsible for investigating complaints against professors or any faculty member related to students rights violations as mentioned above.
(vii) I am seeking this information to understand the measures taken by the institution to uphold the rights of its students and to ensure accountability and transparency in addressing any potential violations.
(viii) The relevant section(s) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under which the police treat complaints related to these types of violations by a professor.
(ix) The procedure followed by the educational institution when an individual professor is alleged to be involved in potential violations of students rights, particularly the Right to Education and the Right to Equality and Equal Opportunity.
(x) The punishments and penalties applicable to a professor found guilty of such violations as per the institutions rules, regulations, or guidelines.
(xi) The actions taken by the educational institution to investigate the allegations against the professor and the outcomes of such investigations Page 6 of 15 3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With reference to point no. 01 & 04: No such information is available in the institute.
With reference to points no. 02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11: As per NIPER- Raebareli Acts & Rules and GoI guidelines.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/645425
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly provide the name and Institutional residential address of the director of your Institute.
(ii) Provide a certified copy of the Registration Certificate (RC) of the government motor vehicle issued by your organisation and used by the director.
(iii) If the director is using a contractual vehicle for travel, kindly provide the RC for the same car.
(iv) Provide a list of project details that the director has completed before joining this organisation.
(v) Provide a list of project details that are ongoing or pending under the directors supervision after joining.
(vi) Provide the certified copy of the facilities provided to your director as per the government guidelines.Page 7 of 15
(vii) Provide the certified copy of the visitors list to meet him/her at the office since she/he has joined NIPER.
(viii) Provide the certified copy of the visitors list to meet him/her at the residence since she/he has joined NIPER.
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. No Institutional residence is provided to the Director, NIPER-Raebareli. ii. Providing the sought information is exempted under RTI Act 2005, Section 8 (j) iii. N/A iv. Not available v. Sought information is exempted under RTI Act 2005, Section 8 (d). vi. As per the statutes, ordinance of NIPER-Raebareli. And the same is available on the institute website in compliance with RTI Act 2005, Section 4 vii. No such documents are available.
viii. No such information is available at the Institute.
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/645397
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide the email address of the director associated with your organisation.Page 8 of 15
(ii) Kindly provide the email address(es) that the director has used to communicate research articles over the past 20 years. If he/she used multiple email addresses for this purpose, provide all of them.
(iii) Please provide the email address that the director has used to seek funds from government funding agencies over the past 20 years. If he/she used multiple email addresses for this purpose, provide all of them.
(iv) Provide the salary slips of the director for the last six months.
(v) Provide the appointment letter of the director, which states the directorship order at NIPER.
(vi) Provide the service book of the director for the past 20 years.
(vii) Provide the certified copy which states that the director has been alleged and been involved in exploitation, damaging the carrier of Scheduled caste student for 20 years. The enquiry has been pending in the constitutional body of the government of India.
(viii) Has the director been involved in the harassment or exploitation of any scheduled caste student? Please provide information on any such incidents or provide me with the declaration form filled out by your director before applying to the organisation.
(ix) Provide a list of any sub-judice cases against the director in any constitutional body of the Government of India.
(x) Provide the name of the god/goddess in whom the director has faith and believes.
(xi) Provide the names of any students who have committed suicide under the directors leadership in the past 20 years.
(xii) Provide the certified copy of the complete biodata and the directors mark sheets of high school and intermediate.Page 9 of 15
5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. Official Email Address of the Director, NIPER-Raebareli is available on the Institute website and it is in the public domain.
ii. No such information is available at the Institute.
iii. No such information is available at the Institute.
iv. Required information is available on the Institute website in compliance with RTI Act, 2005, Section 4.
v. Appointment of Director, NIPER-Raebareli is as per NIPER Act/Statutes. vi. Sought information is exempted under RTI Act, 2005, Section 8 (j).
vii. Not available
viii. Not available
ix. Not available
x. Required information comes under the purview of Article 25 (Freedom of
Religion), hence the sought information is exempted under RTI Act, 2005. xi. No such information is available at the Institute.
xii. Sought information is exempted under RTI Act, 2005, Section 8 (j).
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.09.2023.
6. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Finance and Account Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that the replies furnished by the CPIO were not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI applications. He further submitted that instead of providing the information sought in all the cases the CPIO replied that no Page 10 of 15 such information is available with them. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that responses to the RTI applications in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had been furnished to the appellant vide their letters dated 22.09.2023, 05.09.2023, 07.08.2023 and 28.08.2023. He further submitted that in all the RTI applications, the appellant was seeking clarification/opinion and non-specific information to which the CPIO replied that no such information is available in their office. However, all available information had been furnished to the appellant within time. He stated that since 2023, the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications with an intention of deliberately diverting the time and resources of the public authority. It may be noted that despite having received multiple RTI applications, the CPIO/CPIOs have dealt with all the RTI applications in a categorical and timely manner which has resulted in exhaustion of manpower and public resources.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of all cases, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that due replies have been furnished by the CPIO vide letters dated 22.09.2023, 05.09.2023, 07.08.2023 and 28.08.2023. Perusal of record further reveals that through the information sought in all the RTI application, the appellant is seeking clarification/opinion and non-specific information which does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held "....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 Page 11 of 15 the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
9.1 Further, the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications with an intention of deliberately diverting the time and resources of the public authority. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v.
Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] The following was thus held :
'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. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 Page 25 of 30 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 Page 12 of 15 to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' 9.2 Furthermore, the findings of the Commission in the instant set of matters largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the appellant. Here, the appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act: In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 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 the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' 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 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 witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '...xxx Page 13 of 15 '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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
10. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters.
With this observation, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. Chemicals & Fertilizer,
Department of Pharmaceutical,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education Research (NIPER-Raebareli), CPIO, Bijnor-Sisendi Road, Sarojini Nagar, Near CRPF Base Camp, Lucknow (UP)- 226002
2. Dr. Gyanendra Singh Page 14 of 15
1. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/650950
2. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/649469
3. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/649453
4. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/648660
5. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/645425
6. CIC/NIPRB/A/2023/645397 Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)