Central Information Commission
B. Bhuves Guptha vs Law Commission Of India on 9 June, 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/LCOMI/A/2020/672244
B Bhuvesh Guptha ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Law Commission of India, RTI Cell,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, 4th Floor, B Wing,
Khan Marker, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2022
Date of Decision : 25/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 06/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 16/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 17/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/05/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2020 seeking information in following manner:
"Statute information" of co-incidence provision of law of Act corresponding in the form of middle between off under RTI Act, 2005..."1
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 06.02.2020 stating as follows:-
"The matters mentioned in the application are not clear. However, it is to inform you that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Central Public Information Officer is required to furnish the information available on record and it is not required under the Act to answer queries which are interrogatory in nature or furnish opinion or interpretation or solve the problems raised by the applicant."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2020. FAA's order dated 17.03.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: A K Gupta, Assistant Law Officer & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the information sought for by the Appellant is beyond comprehension.
The Appellant objected to the observation of the Commission but at the same time failed to specify what exactly he seeks to know under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter. The Appellant is advised to acquaint himself with the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the attention of the Appellant is invited towards certain judgments of the higher Courts to emphasize on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]] held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and 2 existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information 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 electronic 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;3
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4