Central Information Commission
Mr. Tony Paul vs Parliment Of India on 20 March, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001317 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of decision : 20 March 2012 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Tony Paul Company Secretary & Head Legal, Saregama India Limited, 33, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata - 700 028.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House/Annexe, New Delhi - 110 001.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The second appeal was filed on 18 April 2011. In the normal course, on first come first served basis, this will come up for hearing sometime later. However, with a view to deciding the case early, we intend to take up the case now without hearing the parties.
3. In his RTI application dated 19 January 2011, the Appellant had sought a number of information in respect of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2010. The CPIO had provided the information and had asked the Appellant to deposit Rs. 560 towards the photocopying charges of 280 pages of records and documents. He had, however, refused to disclose some particular items of information, such as, the copy of all the submissions/representations filed by all stakeholders before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the ground that the disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of the Parliament and was CIC/SM/A/2011/001317 exempt under the provision of subsection 1(c) of Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had, while endorsing the information provided by the CPIO, also informed him about the status of the Bill pending before the Rajya Sabha.
4. We have carefully considered the contents of the RTI application, the reply of the CPIO, the first appeal and the order of the Appellate Authority. If, indeed, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had not submitted its report to the Parliament at the time of the RTI application, the CPIO was right in withholding the details of the submissions made before the Committee for that would have constituted breach of privilege. However, after the report has been placed before the Parliament, possibly, the information could now be disclosed.
5. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the copies of the submissions and representations made before the Parliamentary Standing Committee in this respect unless it is forbidden under any law or rule or by the order of the Parliament itself.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
CIC/SM/A/2011/001317 (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/001317