Central Information Commission
Kamlesh Kumar vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 27 September, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/CAGIN/A/2020/695484
Kamlesh Kumar .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Director-(Admin & CPIO), Office of the
Principal Director of Audit (Health,
Welfare & Rural Development),
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.08.2020
CPIO replied on : 25.09.2020
First appeal filed on : 12.10.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 22.10.2020
Second Appeal received at CIC : 09.12.2020
Date of Interim Hearing : 12.07.2022
Date of Interim Decision : 12.07.2022
Date of Final Decision : 26.09.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:Page 1 of 12
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 25.09.2020, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 13.08.2020. The FAA vide order dated 21.09.2020 held that :Page 2 of 12
• Written submissions received from PIO, vide letter dated 05.07.2022, as under:Page 3 of 12
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by Mr. Shikhar Ranjan Page 4 of 12 Respondent: Mr. Dattaprasad Shirssat, Director, PIO, present in person.
The rep. of the Appellant stated that they are not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further stated that that the information is sought regarding the document issued by their Department to another Govt. Department which is incorrectly denied by the PIO and later by FAA seeking exemption under s. 8 (1) (c) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the exemption sought under s. 8 (1) (c) is not applicable here as the information sought is inter-departmental/inter- ministerial correspondence. The draft of the Report that is to be submitted by the CAG to PAC has not been sought for. Therefore, the act of denial of copies of correspondence between the office of CAG and MoHFW/erstwhile MCI is in contravention of RTI Act, 2005.
Upon Commissions instance, the PIO submitted that a written submission enumerating all the details has been submitted for the perusal of the Commission. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Interim Decision Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that relevant information sough has been denied under the garb of Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Respondent authority. However, no justification in respect of the same has been provided.
In view of the foregoing, Commission provides an opportunity to the PIO to submit a detailed written submission substantiating their averred denial under section 8(1)(c) of the instant RTI Application. The written submission of PIO justifying the said denial of information as directed shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the Appellant. Further, if the Appellant desires to counter the submission of PIO, he may submit the same to the Commission within 15 days of receipt of the CPIO's submission.
The appeal is reserved for final orders Page 5 of 12 Final Decision Commission, vide its interim order, provided an opportunity to the respondent authority substantiating their arguments made during proceedings before the Commission. Further, an opportunity to file counter submission was also provided to the Appellant. Commission has received written submission of concerned PIO. However, no written submission has been received from Appellant and the time duly given has lapsed.
• Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o. Director (Admn.), Office of the Principal Director of Audit (Health, Welfare & Rural Development), vide letter dated 04.08.2022, as under:Page 6 of 12 Page 7 of 12 Page 8 of 12
Final Decision: 26.09.2022 Commission, after perusal of case records, has received written submission by the concerned respondent authority, substantiating their stance that the information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(c) of RTI Act, 2005.
In view of the foregoing, Commission finds it expedient to quote Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which provides for the PIO to provide such information which means :"any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"
Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "right to information" means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;.."
Right to Information Act, 2005, sets out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information from a public authority, which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense. Thus, it is one of the most empowering and most progressive legislations passed in the post-independence era. However, it is equally true that revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and therefore, it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the supremacy of the democratic ideal.
Page 9 of 12The RTI Act mandates disclosure of information rather than withholding the same, unless the information sought for falls under any of the exempted categories of information enumerated in Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, while enforcing provisions of the RTI Act, the public authority shall have to take into consideration the sprit and tenor of the RTI Act. An omnibus disclosure of all records sought for, cannot be allowed without examining the nature of information contained therein.
Mandate of the RTI Act is to disseminate information held by public authorities except that, which is exempted under any of the provisions of the Act or any other special law. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information, which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. However, the right to information is not absolute. Section 8 and 9 of the Act lay down certain exceptions, under which a public authority has a right to reject a request for information, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act Section 8(1)(c) of RTI ACT, 2005, is herein mentioned below:
information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
In order to enable the Parliament or the State Legislature or their individual members to perform their functions effectively and without any impediments or interference from any quarter, certain privileges are conferred upon them under Article 105 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and its members, and under Article 194 of the Constitution which relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of State Legislatures and their members.
Furthermore, for the effective working of both the houses of parliament and their members, internal independence should exist without the interference of any outside party or person. The houses can deal with their respective issues internally without any interference of the statutory authority. The House has also the right to regulate its own internal proceedings and also has the right to call for the session of the Legislative assembly. But it does not have any authority in interrupting the proceedings by directing the speaker of the assembly.Page 10 of 12
As defined by Sir Thomas Erskine May, 'Parliamentary privileges' are the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each house collectively is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each house of parliament individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
Under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, the public authority is not under obligation to furnish information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
Some of the privileges specified by the Constitution are, freedom of speech in Parliament, immunity to a member from any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, immunity to a person from proceedings in any court in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
Courts are prohibited from inquiring into the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure. Further, no officer or Member of Parliament empowered to regulate procedure or conduct of business or to maintain order in Parliament can be subject to the jurisdiction a court in respect of exercise by him of those powers and no person can be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in any court for publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of proceedings of either House of Parliament unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice. This immunity is also available for reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy. This immunity, however, is not available to publication of proceedings of a secret sitting of the House. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to certain extent an exemption from the general law.
In Sajjan Singh vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors., the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) has held that action of denying copies of certain pages contained in the Yatinder Singh-Removal of Pay Anomaly Committee Report is justified under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act on the ground it being under consideration of the Cabinet.Page 11 of 12
In view of the above, Commission upholds the submission upholds the submission made by the concerned PIO and denies the request of Appellant for disclosure of information by the concerned respondent authority. No further intervention of the Commission is required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 12 of 12