Central Information Commission
Anushka Jain vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 27 June, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2021/603743
In the matter of:
Anushka Jain
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY),
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/11/2020 CPIO replied on : 03/12/2020 First appeal filed on : 10/12/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 09/02/2021 Date of Hearing : 23/06/2022 Date of Decision : 23/06/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Siddharth Nath, Tanmay Singh, Amala Dasarathi, Advocates representing the Appellant Respondent: Dr Om Pal, Scientist "D" and Deepak Goel, Sceintist "G", CPIO, present over VC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information related to the Non Personal Data Committee set up by MEITY:
- Copy of all responses received by the Committee via the public consultation on its report on Non Personal Data.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in her second appeal submitted that the information sought pertains to the Non Personal Data Committee set up by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology. A Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Shri. K. Gopalakrishnan was constituted vide OM No. 24(4)2019- CLES on 13.09.2019 to deliberate on the Non-Personal Data Governance Framework. The committee drafted its report which was published for public feedback and suggestions were sought by 13.09.2020. Based on the public feedback/suggestions, the Expert Committee revised its earlier report and a revised draft report was prepared for the second round of public feedback/suggestions which was published on 16.12.2020 She further submitted that the reply of the PIO and the decision of the FAA suffers from non-application of mind, is erroneous and liable to be set aside on the grounds that the PIO has failed to comply with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Under the Section if the PIO does not hold the information requested, the application had to be transferred to the relevant authority. However, the PIO failed to transfer the application to the relevant authority. She relied upon the decision of the CIC in Mallikarjun vs Department Of Posts (CIC/POSTS/A/2018/171081), failure to transfer the application under Section 6(3) "indicates the vacuous and lackadaisical approach towards matters relating to RTI".
The appellant's representative reiterated the written submissions dated 22.06.2022. He also stressed on the fact that similar information was given by the same Ministry and also other Ministries.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the RTI application, it was noted that the RTI application was filed with the Department of Electronics & Information Technology, and the reply was given by the same Department stating that the Ministry is not the custodian of any information relating to the internal functioning of the Committee. The FAA of the same Department also held that he had gone through the appeal as well as the comments and additional information provided by the CPIO, based on the inputs received from the division concerned within the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology and he found the response provided by CPIO earlier to be appropriate.2
The appellant's representative in his written submissions submitted that as per the public domain, this Committee published a draft report for public feedback and suggestions were sought by 13.09.2020. Based on suggestions and public feedback received, the Committee revised its earlier report and a revised draft report was published on 16.12.2020 for a second round of public feedback and suggestions. A copy of the OM was annexed by the appellant. Further, it was submitted that the CPIO's reply was not correct and the CPIO of the Ministry failed to transfer the RTI application to the public authority holding this information. He further submitted that the FAA has failed to consider that MeitY is the appropriate public authority holding information regarding the Committee and its functioning. He alleged that the FAA's order suffers from non-application of mind as the FAA has failed to examine the CPIO's claim that the Ministry is not the custodian of the information pertaining to the Committee, in any manner whatsoever and has simply accepted the CPIO's response as it is, without examining its veracity.
He also submitted that all available material suggests that the Ministry is responsible for the functioning of the Committee. It was constituted by MeitY on 13.09.2019 pursuant to an office memorandum issued by Jatinder Singh, Deputy Director, MeitY. Per the said memorandum, the Committee is financed by funds provided by MeitY. Both reports of the Committee dated 12.07.2020 and 16.12.2020 also bear the MeitY logo on their first page. The appellant also submitted that the information sought must be proactively provided by MeitY, since comments received from the public and stakeholders to draft legislative documents are considered to be a part of the public record. The pre legislative consultation policy bearing D.O no. 11(35)/2013-L.I. published by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (Pre Legislative Consultation Policy, notes that "pre consultative legislation policy as a process supports many of the legitimate and growing expectations for a transparent and better informed Government. The process tends to resolve contentious and complex policies and the areas where Government is seeking a policy to build consensus", and accordingly the Pre Legislative Consultation Policy "should invariably be followed by every Ministry/Department of the 3 Central Government before any legislative proposal is submitted." Paragraph 6 of the Pre Legislative Consultation Policy requires that :
"6. The summary of feedback/comments received from the public/other stakeholders should also be placed on the website of the Department/Ministry concerned."
Thus it is clear that it is the responsibility of the Ministry concerned to ensure that feedback/comments received from the public to pre-legislative documents are made publicly available. This also clearly indicates that MeitY is the custodian of such information and squarely bears the responsibility of making this information available to the public, in direct contradiction to the response provided by MeitY to the appellant's RTI. A copy of the Pre Legislative, Consultation Policy was annexed by him. Notably, information relating to consultative processes, i.e comments and inputs received in relation to proposed draft legislations, are duly being disclosed in RTI proceedings by other Ministries. In August 2021, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare provided all submissions received in a consultative process, in response to an RTI application filed by an applicant, seeking information regarding responses received by the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, to a consultation paper on the "India Digital Ecosystem of Agriculture (IDEA)'. No difficulty with providing similar information as sought in the present case was raised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, which was the custodian of the information and able to provide such information to the appellant as sought. A copy of the RTI application filed and an extract of the response of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare was annexed .
In fact, information relating to other similar committees constituted under MeitY had also been previously disclosed through the CPIO, MeitY. For instance, MeitY provided minutes and meetings of the 9th Empowered Group Committee on Technology and Data Management held between 31st March 2020 to 10 August 2020, in response to an RTI application filed by Sidharth Deb. A copy of the RTI application and the reply was annexed . The Commission therefore asked the CPIO to explain whether he is aware of who is the custodian of the information as the appellant had asked for very 4 clear and specific information, to which he submitted that he is not aware of the same.
The Commission also asked the CPIO to explain whether such responses received by the Committee via the public consultation on its report on Non Personal Data are not personal to those who have submitted the same, however, he was not able to explain the same also.
Decision:
The Commission observed that the appellant was not given a proper reply, when the Committee was formed by the MeitY and the same Committee's recommendation was available in public domain, the CPIO's reply is not acceptable that they are not the custodian. It is the Ministry who has control over the Committee and any document available with them is accessible by the Ministry u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to take corrective steps and take assistance u/s 5(4) from the custodian of the information realting to the mentioned Committee and provide a suitable final reply to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5