Central Information Commission
Sharad Agrawal vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 15 January, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/MOIAB/A/2017/103383/SD
Date of Hearing :12/01/2018
Date of Decision:12/01/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sharad Agarwal
Respondent : CPIO,
Central Board of Film Certification,
Bharat Bhawan - 91 - E,
Walkeshwar Road,
Mumbai - 400006.
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2016
PIO replied on : 09/12/2016
First appeal filed on : 17/12/2016
First Appellate Authority : 30/12/2016
order
Second Appeal dated : 10/01/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of first Censor Certificate and Revised Censor Certificate issued in respect 21 films listed by him in the RTI Application. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Sanjey Jaiswal, Sr. Adm. Officer & CPIO, Central Board of Film Certification, Mumbai present through VC.
CPIO submitted that as per their policy decision censor certificates are not handed over to any other person except the original holder of rights of the film. It is for this reason information was denied to the Appellant.
Commission remarked that CPIO has not invoked any exemption of RTI Act to deny this information and that his explanation does not hold good.
CPIO anxiously submitted that the perils attached to such disclosure are many which cannot be perhaps contained in a simple argument. He shed light on the gruelling issue of piracy faced by the film makers and as to how handing over copies of censor certificates will infringe on the copyrights of the original right holder as susceptibility of copyrights infringement of a right holder is manifold considering that these days cable networks and internet spaces are airing movies without having been assigned with the adequate rights to do so as fake censor certificates are being floated in the market. It is for such reasons, CBFC has issued such policy decision. He further remarked as to what could be the purpose of the Appellant in insisting on getting these censor certificates when every single detail about a censor certificate issued to a film is available on their website.
He further prayed that the Commission may take a considered view in the matter and suggest the course of action adding that if directions are issued for disclosure, he will have to abide by the order of the Commission.
Decision Commission has considered the submissions of the CPIO and opines that the reservations against the denial of information lean towards the exemption provided under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The arguments of the CPIO cannot be 2 File No. : CIC/MOIAB/A/2017/103383/SD dispelled on the grounds that no exemption has been claimed in the initial reply dated 09.12.2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 34 of its judgment in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay dated 09.08.2011 has observed as under:
"34. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act that is section 8 of Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The Courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting section 8 and the other provisions of the Act."
Emphasis Supplied In the spirit of the aforementioned ratio-decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the instant matter, Section 9 of the RTI Act appears appropriate for the denial of information in as much as CPIO has convinced this bench regarding the possible infringement of copyrights of original holder of rights subsisting in the films listed in the RTI Application.
It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submission. The grounds of Second Appeal also do not provide any substantial argument against the denial of information.With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3