Central Information Commission
Rahul Singh Chauhan vs National Commission For Protection Of ... on 15 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/NCPCR/A/2022/650727
Rahul Singh Chauhan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights,
RTI Cell, 5th Floor,
Chanderlok Building,
36-Janpath, New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/11/2022
Date of Decision : 11/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 05/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 20/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking the following information:
1. "A copy of Complaint Ref No: F. No. 32- 53/2021/NCPCR/Misc/LC/216943 along with all enclosures/annexures/attached documents.1
2. A copy of the report along with all enclosures/annexures/attached documents filed by the Child Welfare Committee, Jaipur in Complaint Ref No:
F.No.32-53/2021/NCPCRA/Misc./LC/216943 after conducting detailed enquiries including visits and meetings with the child, the local guardians and the father of the child.
3. A copy of statement made by the child and the local guardians to the Child Welfare Committee officials or any public officer daring the course of the enquiry in Complain Ref No: F. No. 32- 53/2021/NCPCRA/Misc./LC/216943.
4. A copy of all order(s) passed by the National Commission for protection of Child Rights and/or the Child Welfare Committee, Jaipur and/or any other statutory body in relation to Complaint Ref No: F.No. 32-
53/2021/NCPCRA/Misc./LC/216943."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 05.05.2022 and stated as follows:
"As per Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Commission cannot provide the required information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2022. FAA's order dated 20.06.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal narrating the following facts -
"...I had sought information pertaining to a complaint filed against me by the maternal aunt of my minor child, alleging inaction and omission on my part in taking proper care and looking after welfare of my child. This Complaint was filed with a malicious intention to harass my own family, and in an attempt to gain custody of my child. This information was also given by us to the Child Welfare Committee on numerous occasions.
xxxxxx However, my Application was responded to by the Assistant Director & CPIO, Mr. G Suresh vide Reply dated 05.05.2022, whereby the release of the information sought was denied stating that as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI 2 Act, 2005 and Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission cannot provide the required information.
xxxxx c. The FAA has failed to appreciate that Complaint bearing Complaint Ref No:
F No. 32-53/2021/NCPCR/Misc/LC/216943 contained allegations against the present Appellant and hence, the Appellant is entitled to a copy of the complaint and all ancillary proceedings.
xxxx d. Similarly, the statement made by the Appellant to the Child Welfare Committee among other communications sent by the Appellant also forms a part of the information sought that is being held by the NCPCR and the disclosure of the same under the Right to Information Act, 2005; consequently, facilitating access to the same is the Applicant's right.........."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: G. Suresh, Asstt. Director & CPIO present in person.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 07.11.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference
-
"....Shri. Rahul Singh Chauhan vide his online RTI application dated 06/04/2022 has requested to provide it copies of complaint filed by Ms. Sonika Bakshi, sister-in-law of Shri Rahul Chauhan with regard to alleged physical abuse faced by Master Aarav, minor son of Shri Kabul Chauhan from his father. The applicant has also requested to provide copies of report along with enclosures filed by Child Welfare Committee; statement made by the child and copy of orders passed by NCPCR.
2 As the information sought by the applicant being 3rd party, the consent of the affected party was sought who in turn has apprehended that Mr. Rahul Chauhan shall misuse all or any information related to her. She has also informed that it will cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy. Accordingly, the requisite information was not provided to the applicant as per Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005. The applicant filed a first appeal on 3 04/06/2022 and the FAA in her order dated 20/06/2022 has also agreed to the stand taken by the CPIO...."
Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO explained the fact that the averred complaint as per the norms/ guidelines of NCPCR was forwarded to the police authorities for further investigation and it was found that there was no trace of physical abuse of the child as claimed by the complainant.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was denial of information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In response to it, the CPIO explained that the information sought by the applicant belongs to a third party, therefore, the consent of the affected party was sought who in turn apprehended that the complainant shall misuse all or any information related to her and that it will cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy. Accordingly, the requisite information was not provided to the applicant as per Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
Upon taking into cognizance of the above-mentioned facts, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the information has been appropriately denied by the CPIO.
Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4