Central Information Commission
Shri P. C. Parakh, Ias vs Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi. on 8 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. - CIC/WB/A/2009/000966 dated: 26.10.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 19(3)
Appellant : Shri P. C. Parakh, IAS
Respondent: Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi.
Decision Announced 08-01-2010 The Commission has received an appeal from Shri P. C. Parakh of Secunderabad of Andhra Pradesh praying as follows:-
b) "...the Appellate Authority is requested to set aside the order of the CPIO and direct him to make available the files requested for inspection."
That request seeking inspection of files for the period 2004-05 containing communications exchanged between the appellant Shri P. C. Parakh as Secretary, Ministry of Coal and the then Cabinet Secretary was originally moved through an application of 08.06.2009. In his response of 17.06.2009, the CPIO Shri K. S. Achar, Director, Cabinet Secretariat denied the request in terms of Section 8(1) (c) and (e) of RTI Act. Being aggrieved with the response, the appellant Shri P. C. Parakh approached the first appellate authority of the Secretariat u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act on 03.07.2009. The appellant has approached the Commission complaining that no order has been passed by the first appellate authority on his appeal.
Because the 1st appellate authority has not addressed the questions of appellant, which are of direct concern to his public authority the Commission has decided to remand this complaint to the First Appellate Authority Shri Rajive Kumar, Joint Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi to dispose of the appeal of Shri P. C. Parakh within ten working days from the date of receipt 1 of this decision, under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.
In this case the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P. C No.3114/2007 - Shri Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors is of relevance, since it deals with the application of sec. 8(1):
11. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers". In Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court remarked about this right in the following terms:
"The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an "aware" citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizen to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them."
This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for the first time by Justice K.K. Mathew in the State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, (1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court on a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force.
12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
2This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
13. Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right self."
The appellate authority, in disposing of this appeal will do so with specific reference to the above decision of the High Court of Delhi, which also expands on the definition of fiduciary, and to the ruling in WP (CIVIL) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 & 3607 OF 2007, UOI thru Min of Personnel, Public Grievances & Ors. vs. Maj. Rajpal & Ors of Nov. 30, 2009, in which Hon'ble Sanjiv Khanna J which has dealt in extenso on the application of exemption from disclosure u/ s 8(1) (e) in Paras 6 to 16. If not satisfied with the information provided on his 1st appeal, appellant Shri Parakh will be free to move a 2nd appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3).
Announced this eighth day of January 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner) 08.01.2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(PK Shreyaskar) Jt. Registrar 08.01.2010 3