Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Cabinet Secretariat on 7 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CABST/C/2022/626982
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Cabinet Secretariat
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025
Date of Decision : 15.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 28.01.2022
First Appellate Order on : 22.02.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.05.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"A) Please inform the manner in which the information of the erstwhile Standing Committees of Cabinet on Management of Natural Calamities and on Unique Identification Authority of India has been made public by mandate of first proviso to section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act and, in particular:
1. If the information has been made public by Cabinet Secretariat via internet, please provide the exact URL/s.
2. If the Cabinet Secretariat has issued instructions to other Ministries / Departments to make the information public via internet, please provide copies of said instructions.
B) In case the information of the erstwhile Standing Committees of Cabinet has not been made public via the internet and is made public only to extent of becoming accessible under section 6 of the RTI Act, please provide (as substitute for meaningful disclosure under section 4(1)(b)(vi)) copy of the index / note part from each of Cabinet Secretariat files related to the said Cabinet Committees, Page 1 along with particulars of the Ministries / CPIOs holding the records liable to be made public."
PIO, Cabinet Secretariat transferred the instant RTI Application to Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Health & Family Welfare, National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) online on 17.01.2022.
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.01.2022. FAA vide order dated 22.02.2022 stated as under:
" ..3. Observations of the FAA 3.1 I have carefully perused the RTI application, the response of the CPIO and the email Appeal. Form a careful perusal of the Appeal dated 28.01.2022, it is observed that the Appellant has contended/ asked for the following:
(1) Since the two Committees of the Cabinet no longer exist, the material related to proposals considered by the said Committees should be disclosed automatically.
(ii) Being aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat to transfer her application to multiple public authorities, the Appellant has requested for confirmation that the information asked for is not held by the Cabinet Secretariat
(iii) Invoking Section 4(1) (d) of the Act, she has requested for the reasons for decision of the Cabinet Secretariat to make multiple transfer.
(iv) It has further been requested that the "material basis of the belief of the Cabinet Secretariat that the requested information is held by the transferee public authorities" may be made available.
Finally, it has been pointed out that the transfer under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 has not been done within the mandated period of 5 days.
(V) I deal with each of the above issues below.
3.2. It is not very clear whether the Appellant had asked for information related to the two Committees per se, or on proposals considered by the said Committees. I consider both possibilities below.
3.2.1 Information related to the Cabinet Committees:
(i) It is stated that information related to the two erstwhile Standing Committees of Cabinet, ie, Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities and Cabinet Committee on Unique Identification Authority of India related issues has been available in public domain.
The functions of these Committees may be accessed on the website of the Cabinet Secretariat as under-
(Cabinet Secretariat Archive Transaction of Business Rules Year 2013) Relevant extract from ToB amendment dated 10.06.2013 on the functions of the said Committees is also attached.
Page 2
(ii) It may be pointed out that the "Note" below the functions of the "Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities" reads as under.
"The Committee will be serviced by the Ministry of Home Affairs in all cases except in cases relating to Drought Management and Epidemics when it will be serviced, as the case may be, by the Depertment of Agriculture and Cooperation and Department of Health and Family Welfare."
3.2.2. Proposals considered by the Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Resources:
As meritioned in Para 3.2.1 (ii) above, the Secretariat assistance to the Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities was provided by Mio Home Affairs, Dio Agriculture & Cooperation and Dio Health & Family Welfare. In other words, so far as this. Committee is concerned, the Secretariat assistance was not provided by the Cabinet Secretariat. Hence relevant information in respect of proposals considered by the Committee would be available with the said Ministries 3.2.3. Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues (1) As per the first proviso under Section 8(1) (i) of RTI Act, 2005, the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. Thus what determines disclosure of material related to a Cabinet decision is whether the matter related to the said decision is "complete, or over". It has nothing to do with the status of the Cabinet Committee approving the decision. To elaborate, even if a Cabinet Committee ceases to exist, it does not mean that matter related to all decisions approved by the Committee is also 'complete, or over. That is a matter to be decided separately. On the other hand, material related to a decision approved by an existing Cabinet Committee may be disclosed provided implementation of the relevant decision is complete or over. In other words, status of the approving body (Cabinet its Committees) and the status of a Cabinet decision are two different and unrelated matters.
(2) In the clause dealing with disclosure of decisions of the Council of Minister, two terms. are key "cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers and the matter is complete, or over". From a careful reading of the Section 8(1) (i), it is evident that what is exempt from disclosure is "cabinet papers, which is a broad category, including not only the agenda, but also the notice for and minutes of the meeting. There is of course an obligation to disclose the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken after the matter is 'complete, or over"
(iii) It is therefore, clear that the disclosure of material on the basis of which Cabinet decisions are taken, is to be done not merely after the decisions are taken, but only after the 'matter is complete, or over. As an agency entrusted with providing "Secretarial assistance to the Page 3 Cabinet and Cabinet Committees", Cabinet Secretariat cannot decide when a matter related to a Cabinet decision is "complete, or over". It is the implementing Ministry/ Department, which can decide when matters related a 3.5. Transfer of Application beyond the mandated time (1) The Application was received by the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat on 18.01.2022, which was transferred to other Public Authorities on 27.01.2022. It is indeed true that the transfer was not done within the time mandated under Section 6(3) of the Act.
(ii) I sought explanation of Shri Kishor Bandyopadhya, CPIO in this regard. He informed that information had to be obtained from another Division, which was received only on 27.01.2022. 1 heard the Under Secretary concerned Shri Yogesh Gahtori too.
() In my considered opinion, the delay in transfer is not intended. In fact, as the Appellant herself has pointed out there was no obligation to transfer the application to multiple public authorities. The CPIO could have informed the Appellant the names of relevant Ministries/Departments, rather than taking the extra step of transferring the application
(iv) However, since a transfer was done, without question it should have been within the mandated time limit. I have directed both officers to be extremely careful in future, and ensure that such delays never recur
4. Decision of the FAA 4.1. I have dealt with each aspect of the Appeal in Para 3 above, and provided elaborate clarification/ information point-wise. 4.2. In view of the above, the Appeal dated 28.01.2022 stands disposed of.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Complainant made request dated 22.02.2025, 06.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 for postponement of hearing of instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 13.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
5. Current submission of CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat 5.1 The Complainant in her RTI Application sought the information related to the two Cabinet Committees which no longer exist i.e. CC-MNC and CC-UIDAI. The then CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, transferred the RTI Application u/s 6(3) to CPIO, DOA&FW, CPIO, MHA, CPIO, DOH&FW and CPIO, NITI Aayog for response as the information sought more closely related to them and they are best placed to consider the request for information on the position if the matter is complete or over Page 4 under the first proviso to Section 8(1) (i) or any other provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
5.2 In her prayer, Complainant has suspicion about the misuse of the disclosure mandate u/s 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this connection, w.r.t the instant RTI Application and First Appeal, it is stated that
(i) In the original RTI Application itself, it was not very clear whether the Complainant had asked for information related to the two Committees i.e. CC-MNC and CC-UIDAI, or about the proposals considered by the said Committees.
(ii) The functions of the two erstwhile Standing Committees of Cabinet, ie, CC-MNC and CC-UIDAI are available in public domain on the website of the Cabinet Secretariat
(iii) For the matters/proposals considered by them:
(a) Proposals for the decision taken by the CC-UIDAI, was initiated by the erstwhile Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog). Now, to decide whether the matter related to the said decision is "complete, or over" and the disclosure of material on the basis of which Cabinet decisions are taken, is to be done not merely after the decisions are taken, but only after the matter is complete, or over. As an agency entrusted with providing "Secretarial assistance to the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees", Cabinet Secretariat cannot decide when a matter related to a Cabinet decision is "complete, or over". It is the implementing Ministry/ Department, which can decide when matters related a particular decision is "complete, or over" as per first proviso under Section 8(1) (i) of RTI Act. 2005.
(b) In case of CC-MNC, it may be pointed out that the "Note"
below the functions of the "Cabinet Committee on Management of Natural Calamities" reads as under
The Committee will be serviced by the Ministry of Home Affairs in all cases except in cases relating to Drought Management and Epidemics when it will be serviced, as the case may be, by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and Department of Health and Family Welfare.
Further, in case of CC-MNC, these Ministries/ Departments could be the place that might have sponsored the matters/ proposals, if any, considered by the CC-MNC.
Thus, it is clear that CC-MNC was not serviced by Cabinet Secretariat and concerned Ministries/ Departments as mentioned above will be the appropriate place to look for the record related to the matters/ proposals, if any, considered by this Committee.
7. From the above facts of the case, it is submitted that the RTI application & First Appeal by the Complainant has been disposed of by the then CPIO and then FAA of the Cabinet Secretariat as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of Page 5 the above, it is submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable on the part of the Cabinet Secretariat Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Satya Prakash Chaudhary, Cabinet Division, Mr. Soumitra Sahar, US, Admin-I, Mr. Samir Kumar, US, Cabinet Secretariat, Mr. Santosh Kumar Chaubey, CPIO, US (CA-IV), Mr. Surender Kumar, CPIO/US, CA-V, Mr. Anil Kumar Chaubey, US, TS Cell, Mr. Arvind, CA-III- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant during hearing requested the Commission to consider averments made in her instant Complaint and written submission. The Complainant in her Complaint and written submission/requests has stated that the instant Complaint concerns Cabinet Secretariat's transfers dated 27.01.2022 of her RTI request dated 17.01.2022 (for information of the manner in which information relating to 2 Cabinet Committees discontinued in 2014 was made public under 8(1)(i) proviso and information under section 4(1)(b)(vi) of related records held by the Cabinet Secretariat. It was further stated that she has approached this Commission under section 18 because transfers under section 6(3) are not open to appeals under section
19. Furthermore, it has been stated that from all 4 transferee public authorities, she has received 'nil' responses from CPIOs that FAAs confirmed the same. It is stated that she has approached this Commission u/s 18(1)(f) because since the disclosure mandate under section 8(1)(i) proviso is being evaded / not being systematically implemented and the same calls for exercise of the Commission's enquiry powers under section 18(3) & (4) and supervisory power under section 25(5) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that the functions of the two erstwhile Standing Committees of Cabinet, i.e., CC-MNC and CC-UIDAI are available in public domain on the website of the Cabinet Secretariat. They averred that the proposals for the decision taken by the CC-UIDAI, was initiated by the erstwhile Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog). Furthermore, to decide whether the matter related to the said decision is "complete, or over" and the disclosure of material on the basis of which Cabinet decisions are taken, is to be done not merely after the decisions are taken, but only after the matter is complete, or over. They stated that CC-MNC was not serviced by Cabinet Secretariat and concerned Ministries/ Departments will be the appropriate place to look for the record related to the matters/ proposals, if any, considered by the Committee.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate action as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been taken by the CPIO. Therefore, no malafide Page 6 can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. Furthermore, after examining the facts and records of the case Commission notes that no case of enquiry under Section 18 is made out. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Page 7 Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)