Central Information Commission
Shri R.L. Kain vs President’S Secretariat on 19 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000089 dated 17-2-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri R.L. Kain
Respondent: President's Secretariat
Decision announced: 19.2.2010
FACTS
By an application of 26-6-2008 Shri R.L. Kain of Dilshad Garden, Delhi applied to the CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, President's Secretariat with 16 questions seeking information stemming from a representation submitted to the President's Secretariat by Shri Kain of 15-10-2007 regarding the alleged replacement of effigy of Ashoka Pillar on Indian currency notes.In his initial response CPIO Shri Kidwai who had received the application on 27-6-08 (incorrectly written as 27-7-08 in CPIO's response) to the following:
"1. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi (for points 3, 4, 13-16)
2. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Central office Building, 17th floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-400001 (for points 6-12).
3. CPIO, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (for points 6-16) However, upon receiving no further response Shri Kain moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority, IFA, President's Secretariat pleading as below:
"The reply of the Respondent has been examined in detail and it is further stated that neither he nor the other public authorities, as mentioned in his interim letter, have sent their replies to the Appellant till date."
Subsequently, Shri Kain received responses from the following:
I. In his response of 1-8-08 Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, CPIO, President's Secretariat has informed the appellant Shri Kain as follows:
"1) Your petition dated 15.10.07 does not appear to have been received in this Secretariat.1
2) As in 1 above.
5) This point does not fall within the definition of information, as defined in sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the information sought for are in the nature of queries and the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast any obligation on the Public Authority to answer queries. The applicant's right extend only to seeking information as has been defined in sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 either by pinpointing the file / document / paper / record etc. as may be available with the specified Public Authority. The CIC has also affirmed this fact in its Order No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 (Dr. D. V. Rao vs. CPIO) dated 21.4.2006."
II. In his response of 21-7-08 Shri Sunil Mishra, CPIO & Director, Cabinet Secretariat has informed the appellant Shri Kain as follows:
"Your attention is invited to the appeal dated 15.10.2007 filed by you seeking similar information under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority of the Cabinet Secretariat while disposing your appeal informed you that the Cabinet Secretariat is not the custodian of the information. You were also advised to prefer appeal to the appellate authorities of the Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Home Affairs to whom your earlier RTI application already stands transferred from this Secretariat. You are, therefore, advised to pursue with these public authorities for the required information. A copy of this application is being transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Financial Services in terms of sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act for taking appropriate action and providing the information."
III. In his response of 4-8-08 Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, CPIO & Dy. Secretary, MHA has informed the appellant Shri Kain that none of the points raised by him in his application relate to the MHA.
IV. In his response of 28-8-08 CPIO Shri P. Mohanadasan, Under Secretary, ADB/POL of Dep't. of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance has presented appellant Shri Kain with the following chart:
Sl. No. Comments
6. Is it true that regular coins of 6. Information on commemorative deferent denominations had coins on national leaders and other been issued on different national prominent persons is enclosed. leaders from time to time, if yes please quote the names and year 2 of circulation on whom the coins of different denominations were circulation.
When Govt. of India can shower 7. The commemorative notes of its generosity by circulating the different denominations on national different coins on national personalities will lead to multiplicity of personalities then what is the designs of currency notes in problem and difficulty to circulate circulation which is likely to increase currency notes on different the changes of counterfeiting of Indian denomination on other national Bank Notes which is detrimental to the leaders including Baba Saheb national security. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar as a popular demand persists with President, Prime Minister and Finance Minister level which could bring harmony in the country whether any complaint had been received by the President, Prime Minister and Finance Minister, if yes, please provide the copies of the same and in case no complaint had been received then what is the objection to Ministry of Finance to circulate the GC Notes on all other personalities including Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
Section 25 of the RBI Act 1934 9. No record on the subject is require that on the available with this department. recommendations made by the However, it is stated that for any Central Board of RBI the central matter for which Parliament has Government will approve the already enabled the Central form and design of bank notes Government by an Act to take a please confirm it from your decision, the administrative Ministry records that Council of Ministers (Ministry of Finance in case of design had any time other than of currency notes) is competent to 11.12.1947 communicated to the take a decision. President about the decision of council of Ministers or any law had been form by the Sec. 25 of the RTI Act 1934 that no sanction of Council of Ministers would be required to bring any change in all GC notes containing the portrait of Gandhi are illegal tender notes because it lacks the legal authority.
310. Whether the Morarji Bhai 10. A copy of the High denomination Government demonetize one Bank Notes (Denomination) Ordnance thousand rupees notes without 1978 and the High Denomination the cabinet decision or without Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, the Central Government 1978 are enclosed herewith.
approval, if yes, please quote the authority under which Section of the RTI Act, 1934 the Government of India had issued ordinance and got approved act, please apprise the factual position and supply the copy of the ordinance and copy of legislation passed by Parliament to this effect. 12. When were the one 12. Rs. 1000/- denomination note thousand rupee notes re- was reintroduced on Oct. 9, 2000 by circulated by the Government of the Reserve Bank of India after India, please quote the section of Parliament enacted the High the RTI Act 1934 under which the Denomination Bank Notes law was passed by Parliament (Demonetisation) amendment act, and apprise him of final decision 1998 (copy is enclosed). taken by the President, together with the compelling Application has already been informed circumstances and reasons for that replacement of the Ashoka Pillar recirculation of one thousand with the water mark of the portrait of rupee notes in this behalf, please Mahatma Gandhi was done in arrange to supply the copy of accordance with the Section 25 of the
Cabinet decision forwarded by RTI Act, 1934. Since no deviation the Prime Minister under sub from the procedure laid down in the clause (a) of Article 78 of the same section was made, there was no Constitution of India as the same need to seek the approval of the could not be accessed from the Cabinet for the change proposed. CPIO, Ministry of Finance due to their infallible reasons; whether the Minister of Finance or the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance had taken a final and independent action alike replacement of effigy of Ashoka Emblem from all currency notes with the portrait of Gandhi, if yes, please arrange to get the clarification from CPIO, Ministry of Finance or they had taken any approval of Cabinet or Council of 4 Minister, if yes, please supply the copy of the same as the Ministry of Finance had quoted to adopt some other forum on the subject.
In the meantime, in her order of 11-9-2008 on the first appeal of Shri Kain, Ms. Rasika Chaube, IFA, President's Secretariat has found as follows:
"As point No. 3 dealt with delegation of powers under the Transaction of Business Rules for which Cabinet Secretariat is the nodal department, the action taken by the CPIO is in order. Point No. 4 dealt with Cabinet decisions. Hence the same was also transferred to the Cabinet Secretariat by the CPIO. Point No. 13 to 16 also dealt with Cabinet Decisions in the matter; hence the action taken by the CPIO in transferring the case is in order. Point Nos. 6 to 12 dealt with the issue of currency, coins on national personalities and recommendations by Reserve Bank of India. Hence these issues were also transferred by the CPIO to the concerned office i.e. Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India. Since point Nos. 1, 2 & 5 pertained to the President's Secretariat, the same were replied to the appellant vide letter dated 1.8.08. As regards point Nos. 1 & 2 the appellant was informed that his earlier petition had not been received in this Secretariat. Hence no action could be taken on that. As regards Point No. 5 since the information asked for was in the form of a query and did not come within the ambit of Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, the same was not replied to by the CPIO. No further action is required to be taken by the CPIO of the President's Secretariat. As regards transferring the application beyond the mandatory period of 5 days, I have examined the same and I find that this has happened because of the large number of queries and since the CPIO was trying to establish the area of jurisdiction before transferring the various issues under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. However, the CPIO has been advised to be careful sin future.
In his prayer before us in his second appeal Shri Kain has pleaded as below:
"1. The Hon'ble CIC may please be gracious to pass suitable orders against CPIO to supply the necessary documents and information which is still awaited.
2. To impose deterrent penalty u/s 20 (1) in current case and also revive the penalty in earlier case No. CIC/WB/A/2006/781 dated 18.7.2007 Annexure G for 5 allegedly loss of RTI application and non supply of noting till date as ordered in the orders.
3. To pass orders for compensation for causing detrimental losses to the honour and dignity of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, hurting the sentiments of teeming millions of his followers consisting of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Buddhists across the country for removal of Ashoka Emblem from all note without the authority of law.
4. To recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO or the deemed CPIO under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 for deemed refusal of information on one pretext or the other under section 20 (2) of RTI Act, 2005.
5. To transfer the RTI application to other CPIOS by 16 days under section 6 (3).
6. To transfer the RTI application to other CPIOs who are not at all in possession of information and documents in their possession."
The appeal was heard on 19-2-2010 by videoconference. The following are present.
Appellant:
Shri R.L. Kain Respondents at President's Sectt.
Shri Faiz A. Kidwai, CPIO Mr. Rasika Chaube, Appellate Authority Respondent Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai submitted in his response to a question of this Commission that the delay in response to the RTI application dated 27-6-08 to which response became due on 27-7-08 had arisen only from an exhaustive search being conducted to trace the copy of the letter of 15-10-07 upon which information had been sought on action taken by the President of India.
Appellant Shri R.L. Kain stated that had he been called for hearing at the level of CPIO or Appellate Authority he would have been readily able to identify the letter in question, which carries the stamp of receipt of the President's Secretariat dated 15-10-07, since it has been deposited by him personally at the counter of Rashtrapati Bhavan meant for the purpose.6
DECISION NOTICE Appellant Shri R.L. Kain has moved no appeal to the concerned authorities on the questions answered by the Cabinet Secretariat, MHA and Department of Economic Affairs, MOF. The plea, therefore, centres wholly around question Nos. 1 and 2 to which action taken on the letter submitted to the President of India by Shri R.L. Kain, Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Vichar Manch (Regd.) is germane. The request made in this letter is as below:
"Since independence neither the Cabinet took any decision for replacement of effigy of Ashoka Pillar from all the GC Notes nor any law has been passed by the Parliament till date but the Ministry of Finance is according the approval of Finance Minister from time to time in utter violation of section 25 of RBI Ct and Article 246. Apart from above violations the Minister of Finance has misused and abused his powers in utter disregards to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules. This Manch has been striving hard to persuade the Government to include the portrait of Baba Saheb DR. B. R. Ambedkar in the family of all series of GC notes but the misguided and prejudiced officialdom had always rejected out demand with this plea that the Government had taken a decision not to print note with any portrait other than that of Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi (V. K. Velukutty, Dy. Manager (C&C). As per information supplied government had never taken any decision to print Gandhi's portrait along in all GC Notes. The Government had misled this Manch and no one in the Government is ready to speak on the subject from the Finance Minister to Prime Minster. WE most earnestly urge upon Her Excellency to call for the report from the Prime Minister under Article 78 (c) as the Minister of Finance had taken a decision at his end but had not been considered by Council of Ministers. When coins can be issued where is the difficulty in notes. In cash such practice Minister are not checked in time there will be danger and fraud with the democracy. The Ministry of Finance not only violated the above provisions but had also hurt the sentiments of Buddhist people of the country by removing their symbols from national arena. Recently ICN published the National Flag on 15.8.2007 with Charkha in place of Ashoka Chakra by misleading the nation and has brought the image of Gandhi under criticism for its political game plan. None of the governmental agencies has taken any action on our protest. We, therefore, urge upon Her Excellency to intervene in the matter, order for restoration of effigy of Ashoka 7 Emblem in notes, publication of notes on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in addition to Gandhi with a view to bring harmony in the country alike coins keeping them above party consideration."
During the hearing it has become apparent that CPIO Shri Kidwai was unable to trace a copy of this letter because no copy of the letter had been attached either with his request for information or in his first appeal by Shri R.L. Kain and the contents of the letter with the receipt stamp has come to be known to CPIO only in the hearing of this appeal. CPIO Shri Kidwai will, therefore, now make an expeditious effort to trace this record on the basis of the receipt stamp, and inform the appellant of the action taken thereon within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. On this basis the appeal is allowed. There will however, be no costs Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 19-2-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 19-2-2010 8