Central Information Commission
Jasdeepak Singh vs Prime Minister'S Office on 10 April, 2020
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/112650-BJ
Dr. Jasdeepak Singh
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary
Prime Minister's Office, South Block
New Delhi - 110011
...प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2020
Date of Decision : 10.04.2020
Date of RTI application 06.12.2018
CPIO's response 09.01.2019/
11.01.2019
Date of the First Appeal 12.01.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 05.02.2019
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.03.2019
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding certified copies of all communications/ letters/ complaints written by Mr. Subramanian Swamy (Rajya Sabha MP) addressed to the PMO pertaining to the Associated Journal Limited; certified copies of all communications made by the PMO to Mr. Subramanian Swamy for the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.01.2019 provided an interim reply to the Appellant informing him that the matter was being processed by their office and reply/ information would be sent as soon as possible. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.01.2019 informed the Appellant that the information sought by the Appellant was sweeping and generic and not available in a consolidated form. The collection of information required undertaking a thorough search of every receipt/ communication kept in all the files related to the matter and such extensive exercise would disproportionately divert the resources of their office from the normal discharge of its functions and attract the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.02.2019 Page 1 of 3 stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 11.01.2019 had already responded in the matter and the prayer for penalizing the CPIO was not maintainable before the forum of First Appeal but instead could be preferred to the Commission as per Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Jasdeepak Singh, through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar (US) and CPIO, through TC;
In view of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, both the parties were heard on phone. While the Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the details were not furnished. The Respondent explained that the communications by Rajya Sabha MP addressed to the PMO pertaining to the Associated Journal Limited could pertain to several Public Authorities and therefore in the absence of specific details, it tantamounts to information hunting that defeats the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005. Appreciating the concerns expressed by the Respondent, the Appellant agreed to re-visit the nature of queries sought by him and address it appropriately.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) 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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 3
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 10.04.2020 Page 3 of 3