Central Information Commission
Mr.C.S.Kalra vs University Of Delhi on 23 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001211/4250
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001211
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.C.S.Kalra
770 Vikaskunj,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
Respondent : Mr.Jay Chanda
Asstt. Registrar & PIO University of Delhi, Main Campus Delhi-110007.
RTI application filed on : 18/01/2009
PIO replied : 20/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 05/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 18/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 15/05/2009
Sl. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Findings and recommendations, if any, of The matter under reference is subjudice. The relevant
the Apex Committee on Sexual Harassment documents are with the University Counsel for legal
of the University of Delhi constituted under opinion which is still awaited. Since, disclosure of
Ord XV-D in the matter of Dr.Ramesh C information which would impede the process of
Sharma, Principal, Motilal Nehru College investigation is exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the
(University of Delhi) on a complaint by Dr. Act, it can not be provided.
(Ms) Vidya Pradhan of the College.
2. Action taken, if any, by the authorities of -As above-
the College on the recommendations of
Apex Committee which is within the
knowledge of the University? A certified
copy of action taken report/intimation and
follow-up, if any, both by the college
authorities as also the University of Delhi.
3. Total amount of money disbursed, promised It is informed that Prof. Ramesh Chandra has filed
or demanded by various counsels, several Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of
advocates, senior advocates and other legal Delhi. The Appellant may, therefore, inspect the
personnel or committed by the University of records maintained by the Section, whiled authorizing
Delhi in various court cases relating to the the payment to various Advocates at a mutually
matter of Prof. Ramesh Chandra of the convenient date and time with Dy. Registrar (Legal),
Deptt. of Chemistry and a former Incharge University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 on Telephone No.
of Dr.Ambedkar Centre for Biomedical 011-27662841 on or before 31.03.2009.
Research? A certificate copy of each bill A copy of the circular dt. 04.03.2008 regarding revision
mentioning details of each case instituted, of fee for University penal advocates had already been
defended or intervened by the University. provided. However, for information of the information
seeker it is informed that the following are the fees
committed by the University for the two University
Counsels engaged for this purpose:
i) Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate-@ fee of Rs.33,000/- per hearing with Rs.7000/- for per conference before the High Corut of Delhi.
ii) Mr.M.J.S. Rupal, Advocate on record-@ fee of Rs.2000/- per hearing with Rs.1000/- per conference and Rs.2000/- per affidavit or counter affidavit filed before High Court of Delhi.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The PIO informed that the information demanded in paras 1-2 could be supplied as the matter was sub-judice. On further query the PIO regressed and stated that it was a 'typographical error' which amounted to no information at all.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The PIO provided the approved rates of fee payable to the Advocates and also allowed inspection of the records, which was not availed of by the Appellant. After considering the appeal, it is informed that:-
1& 2 The report of the Apex Complaints Committee sought by the Appellant is regarding a complaint of sexual harassment by a teacher against the Principal, Motilal Nehru College. The action on the report is not over yet and disclosure would not only impede the process but may also lead to defamation of the complainant/accused. Since defamation is punishable offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the disclosure is exempted under Section 8 (1) (a) in addition to 8(1) (h) of the Act.
3. The details of payment made by the University to the Advocates in the cases relating to Prof. Ramesh Chandra (under suspension), Department of Chemistry had already been provided to the Appellant"
Grounds for Second Appeal
1. Monetary penalty @ Rs.250/- per diem for delay.
2. Disciplinary action for repeat violation, misleading information and obfuscation.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 2 July 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.C.S.Kalra Respondent: Mr. Deepak Vats on behalf of PIO Mr.Jay Chanda The PIO had asked the appellant to inspect the files for two years and given the data for one year. The PIO now agrees to collate the data for the entire period.
The PIO states that the information about the report of the APEX committee on sexual harassment should not be released since, "disclosure of the material involving a complaint of sexual harassment nature can be used to defend the accused/complainant and can be embarrassing for them. Such disclosure therefore is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act because defamation is an offence under IPC."
The appellant states, "such disclosure is not exempted under Section 8(1)(a) as pleaded by the PIO. On the contrary it will serve a greater social purpose by making whole report public in the true spirit of RTI. As far so called definition 'section 499 and 500 of IPC are emphatic that if something is true or in public interest it does not constitute the defamation at all.' It cannot be any bodies' case that high level committees of Delhi University are here to produce defamatory reports."
The order was reserved during hearing on 2 July 2009.
Decision announced on 23 July 2009:
The PIO and the FAA have denied the Findings and recommendations, if any, of the Apex Committee on Sexual Harassment of the University of Delhi constituted under Ord XV-D in the matter of Dr.Ramesh C Sharma, Principal, Motilal Nehru College (University of Delhi) on a complaint by Dr. (Ms) Vidya Pradhan of the College claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) & (a) of the RTI Act. No reasoning has been given of how Section 8(1)(a) applies to the disclosure of the said information . It is impossible to imagine that this disclosure could prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest of the Sate, relation with the foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.
The PIO's contention that information would not be given since the matter is sub-judice is without any basis in RTI Act. Under this Act, providing information is the rule and denial an exception. Any attempt to constrict or deny information to the Sovereign Citizen of India without the explicit sanction of the law will be going against rule of law.
Right to information as part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression is well established in our constitutional jurisprudence. Any restriction on the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens in a democratic polity is always looked upon with suspicion and is invariably preceded by a great deal of thought and reasoning. Even the Parliament, while constricting any fundamental rights of the citizens, is very wary. Therefore, the PIO, First Appellate Authority or the Information Commission have no authority to create new exemptions and in the process curtail the Fundamental Right of information of citizens.
The claim for exemption under Section 8(1) (h) is now examined. Section 8(1) (h) exempts information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
The report of the said committee has evidently been submitted hence it cannot be claimed that the investigation is continuing. In a case where investigation is not continuing it cannot be argued that revealing the information could impede the process of investigation since the investigation is already over. Even when an investigation is continuing a case has to made out showing how revealing the information will impede the process of the investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The FAA states that the action of the report is not over and the disclosure would impede the process but also lead to defamation of the complainants/accused. He has stated, "since defamation is a punishable offence under the Penal Court hence it is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) in addition to Section 8(1)(h) of the Act." If any one uses the information obtained under Right to Information to defame some one, the Law exists to punish this. A PIO cannot assume the Right to prevent defamation by imagining such a possibility and denying the information based on this. In view of this the exemptions under Sections 8(1) (a) & (h) do not apply in this case.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the Appellant before 10 August 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 July 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) AK