Central Information Commission
Mrj D Singh vs Gnctd on 24 November, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051
J.D.Singh Vs. Delhi Disputes Resolution Society
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI application: 1022015 FAA Order:1022015 2nd Appeal:172015
Rejected Hearing:20082015 Decision:24112015
Parties Present:
The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. T.C.Tirhani, Mr.
P.Ambbashta and Mr. Sanjay.
FACTS:
1. Appellant by his RTI application had sought copy of DHC Mediation and Conciliation rules. PIO replied that the information was available in the official website of Delhi High Court. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. FAA by his Order dated 19.05.2015 stated that the information was available in the official website. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached the Commission in second appeal. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION:
2. The appellant is not present. The respondent authority submitted that they had already furnished the requisite information to the appellant, even though the same was available in the official website. But as far as the mediation details of the third party are concerned, the same was denied to the appellant, as per the RTI provisions.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 1
3. Respondent officer stated that that Delhi Dispute Resolution Society had been established with the objective of providing alternative forum through the ADR mechanism at no cost for resolution of disputes whether or not pending in the Courts of Law. DDRS has been set up to give an environment to the complainant comfortable and fearless and to ventilate the grievances.
4. Respondent officer also submitted that the following cases of the appellant has been disposed of by them as stated below :
Sl. RTI Gist of the RTI Reply of Same RTI Reply of Appeal to the First Order Passed by FAA No Applicatio SPIO Applicatio CPIO Appellate Authority . n to CPIO n to CPIO
1. 27.01.15 o'kZ 2009 ls Lwkpuk 11.03.2015 Seeking Hon'ble Appellate Authority Addressed o'kZ 2015 vkt vf/kdkj of the copy of the passed the Order on to SPIO rd DDRS vf/kfu;e 2005 DDMCC Agreement 31.03.2015 and directed the Nand Nagri dk;kZy;ksa esa ds varxZr nh to Participate in SPIO Nand Nagri to provide a vui<+ o fgUnh xbZ Hindi copy of Agreement to i<+s fy[ksa ifjHkk'kk esa Participate in Hindi language yksd ekeyksa dsoy ogh to the Appellant. The same esa iz;qDr dh tk lwpuk miyC/k was provided by the SPIO jgh DGMCC, djokbZ tkrh Nand Nagri to the Appellant AGREEMENT gS] tks fd on 06.04.2015.
TO miyC/k gks]
PARTICIPATE mls fo"ks'k :i
IN ls cukdj nsus
MEDIATION/ dk izko/kku
CONCILIATIO ugha gSA vr
N % ;g
AGREEMEN
vaxzsth T FORM
QkSjesV dh] vaxzsth esa
fgUnh Hkkf'kr miyC/k gksus
QkSjesV izfr ds vk/kkj ij
fu/kkZfjr vof/k vaxzsth esa
ds varxZr gh miyC/k
vkosnd djokbZ tk jgh
izkFkhZ dks gS (dkWih
tufgr ds fy, layXu)
miyC/k djk
nsaA
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 2
2. 27.01.15 lanHkZ la[;k lwpuk vf/kdkj 07.03.2015:- 23.03.2015:- The Hon'ble
Addressed 1975&76@,u,u vf/kfuf;e 2005 Seeking all certified First Appellate Authority after
to SPIO @ ih ,l ,e ,l ds varxZr nh copies of verbal going through the clause 2(f)
Nand Nagri @2014 f"kdk;r xbZ lwpuk dh statements of of RTI Act, 2005, passed the
ds fo'k; esa] ifjHkk'kk Monika and Pawan Orders that verbal statements
fnukad 17-01- esa ;g (vfyf[kr Kumar in respect of does not cover under the
2015 esa fnYyh c;ku) lfEefyr Case file no. definition of "Information".
fookn lek/kku ugha gSA SR.1975-76/NN/ Therefore, the reply given by
lfefr dks PSMS/2014 the SPIO Mediation Centre, is
eksfudk o iou Pertaining to the in order. Hence the matter
dqekj ds fn;s case at DDRS was disposed off.
gq, vfyf[kr Mediation Centre
lHkh tqckuh Nand Nagri *This matter is listed before
c;kuksa dks the Hon'ble Commissioner
fyf[kr :i esa tek for hearing on 31.07.2015 at
djokdj vkosnd 12.00 Noon vide File No.
izkFkhZ dks CIC/SA/A/2015/000
lR;kfir Nk;k 22.7.2015
izfr fu/kkZfjr
vof/k ds varxZr
iznku djsaA
3. 08.01.15 iz0 1 fnYyh fookn 08.01.15 16.01.2015 fnukad d`i;k djds viuh viyh fnukad
Addressed lek/kku lfefr ds
m0 1 fnYyh 08@01@2015 esa 29@01@2015 ds lanHkZ esa
to SPIO vf/kfu;e dh lR;kfir
izfr ? fookn ekaxh gqbZ tkudkjh ftlesa 10@&#- dk Hkkjrh;
Nand Nagri. lek/kku lfefr lwpuk Jh fiz;jatu iksLVy vkMZj la0 21F
iz0 2 fnYyh fookn ds vf/kfu;e
The same vec'B] vfr0 funs'kd 225695 layXu gSA izFke
lek/kku lfefr ds dh lR;kfir
was Rules Regulations izfr ugha bapkZt ,oa vihy izkf/kdkjh] First ppellate
transferred dh lR;kfir izfr? gSA tu&lwpuk vf/kdkjh uthority} ds le{k vkidh
to CPIO Mh0Mh0vkj0,l0 vkj0Vh0vkbZ0 vkosnu
Head Office iz0 3 fnYyh fookn m0 2 Rules
lek/kku lfefr ds vfiy Regulatinns uUn uxjh o Jh0 fnukad 08@01@2015 vkSj
vide Section
QkeZ ? cukus dh Vh0lh0 fraFkkuh] tokc fnukad 16@01@2015 ds
6(3) of RTI izfdz;k tkjh lqfizVsUMsV lanHkZ esa Hkkjrh; iksLVy
Act, 2005 iz0 4 fnYyh fookn gS] tYn dh
lek/kku lfefr dks iz"kklu] tu lwpuk vkMZj dh ewy izfr
iwjh dj yh
izkIr "kfDr;ksa dh tk,xhA vf/kdkjh (original)la0 21F 225695 dks
lR;kifr izfr ? Mh0Mh0vkj0,l0 okil Hkstk tk jgk gSA D;ksafd
m0 3 fnYyh eq[;ky; us o'kZ 2009 vihy djus ds fy, bldh dksbZ
iz0 5 fnYyh fookn fookn
lek/kku lfefr ds lek/kku lfefr ls o'kZ 2015 vkt rd vko";drk ugha gSA
lek/kku lwph dh dk dksbZ turk o vkosnd
lR;kfir izfrZ ? vihy QkeZ izkFkhZ dks miyC/k vkxs] eq>s lwfpr djus ds fy,
ugha gSA ugha djkbZ gSA vr% funsZf"kr fd;k x;k gS fd izFke
iz0 6 fnYyh fookn dksbZ Hkh
lek/kku lfefr ds izFke vihy vf/kdkjh vihy izkf/kdkjh (First
f"kdk;rdrkZ
iathdj.k dh lR;kfir Mh0Mh0vkj0,l0 Appellate Authority) dks
lk/kkj.k dkxt
izfr ? esa viuh eqf[k;k egksn; th ls vkids fnukad 29@01@2015
f"kdk;r ntZ
vuqjks/k gS fd dh vihy vkSj gekjk tokc
dj dsUnz ds fnukad 16@01@2015 dks
ofj'B fnukad
08@01@2015 i<us ds ckn fdlh izdkj dh deh
vf/kdkjh (In-
Charge/Addi vkosnu esa ekaxh ugha feyh gSA vkidks }kjk
tional
xbZ tkudkjh lwpuk Hksth xbZ vkj0Vh0vkbZ0
Director) dks vkosnu fnukad 08@01@2015
lEcksf/kr dj tufgr ds fy, turk o
ldrk gS rFkk vkosnd izkFkhZ dks ds lHkh 6 iz"uksa dk tokc
mlh ds lkFk fu%ladksp fu/kkZfjr gekjs i= fnukad
gh igpku i=
vof/k ds varxZRk 16@01@2015 esa fn, x, gS]
dh dksih ftl izdkj iz"u la0 1 esa iwNk
Hkh layXu miyC/k djk nsaA
x;k gS fd fnYyh fookn
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 3
djuk vfuok;Z lek/kku lfefr ds vf/kfu;e dh
gSA
lR;kfir izfr? bldk mRrj fn;k
m0 4 fnYyh x;k Fkk fnYyh fookn lek/kku
fookn lfefr ds vf/kfu;e dh lR;kfir izfr
lek/kku lfefr
ugha gSA
dks "kfDr
izkIr gS fd gkykafd fnYyh fookn lek/kku
og izfroknh
(Opposite lfefr ds laLFkk dk cfgfuZ;e
party) dks Memoarndum ofooN iation}
uksfVl Hkst dh ,d izekf.kr izfr ftlesa 25 ist
dj e/;LFkrk
gS] ;g vkidks 2@& #0 izfr ist
ds fy, cqykrk
gS vkSj ;fn ds fglkc ls %Total ls 50 N}
i{k&foi{k miyC/k djkbZ tk ldrh gSA iz0
lger gks tkrs la0 2 ds lanHkZ esa iwNk x;k
gSa] rks
Fkk fd fnYyh fookn lek/kku
vkilh lgefr ls
fooknksa dk lfefr ds Rules Regulations dh
lek/kku fd;k lR;kfir izfr? ftldk ;g mRrj fn;k
tkrk gSA x;k Fkk fd "Rules Regulatons
m0 5 fnYyh cukus dh izfdz;k tkjh gS] tYn
fookn gh iwjh dj yh tk,xhA bl
lek/kku lfefr lanHkZ esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k
ds tfj, fuiVk,
tkrk gS fd orZeku esa gekjh
tk ldus okys
fookn lfefr %DdSR}, fnYyh mPPk
Citizen U;k;ky; ds
Charter esa Mediation&Conciliation
n"kkZ, x,
Rules 2004 dk ikyu dj jgh
gSa tks bl i=
ds lkFk gSA bls vki fnYyh mPp
layXu gSA U;k;ky; dh osclkbV ls izkIr dj
ldrs gSaA ckdh cps gq, iz'u
m0 6 fnYyh
fookn la0 3]4]5 vkSj 6 dk ikyu gekjs
lek/kku lfefr i= fnukad 16@01@2015 }kjk
ds iathdj.k Hkyh&Hkkafr fn;k x;k gSA
dh lR;kfir
layXu Hkkjrh; iksLVy vkMZj
izfr visf{kr
"kqYd dk la021F 225695 (in original)
Hkqxrku
djus ij
miyC/k djk;h
tk,xhA
4. 14.01.15 lanHkZ la[;k vkids }kjk fnukad The first appellate authority
Addressed 1976@,u,u@ih ekaxh xbZ 14@01@2015 passed the order on
to SPIO ,l ,e ,l@2014 lwpuk tks fd vkosnu esa ekaxh 23.03.2015 as under:-
Nand Nagri esa ekStwn lanHkZ la[;k gqbZ lwpuk Jh
lHkh iwjs 1976@,u,u@i fiz;jatu vec'B As per Rule 20 of Mediation
nLrkostksa dh h ,l ,e ,l@ funs"kd tu lwpuk and Conciliation Rule 2004"
lR;kfir izfr] 2014 fnukad vf/kdkjh us miyC/k e/;jFkrk izfdz;k ds nkSjku
vkonsd dks 29 fnlacj] ugha djk;h gSA vr% xksifu;rk lqfuf"pr dh tkrh gSA
vof/k ds varxZr 2014 ds rgr Jh Vh0lh0 frZFkkuh] gkykafd e/;jFkrk izfdz;k rc
iznku djsaA iou dqekj o izFke vihy vf/kdkjh vkjaHk gks ldrh gS tc nksuksa
vU; cuke t; th ls vuqjks/k gS fd i{k e/;jFk ds le{k gks D;ksafd
/kkjk flag o fnukad e/;jFkrk ,d f}i{kh; izfdz;k gS
vU; ds ekeys 14@01@2015 vkSj fdlh foi{kh ikVhZ ds
ls lacaf/kr vkosnu esa ekaxh vHkko esa dksbZ e/;jFkrk
gSA bl ekeys gqbZ lwpuk vkosnd ugha dh tk ldrhA xksiuh;
esa e/;jFkrk izkFkhZ dks okLrfod e/;jFkrk izfdz;k ls
dsUnz esa ;g fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds tqMh gqbZ gS vkSj okLrfod
ekeyk Fkkuk varxZr miyC/k djk e/;jFkrk izfdz;k ds izkjaHk ls
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 4
ekuljksoj nsaA igys pj.k dks ns[kus ds fy,
ikdZ ls ughaA
e/;jFkrk
dsUnz esa 29- blfy, ,l0ih0vkbZ0vkS0
12-2014 dks e/;jFkrk dsUnz uUn uxjh }kjk
vk;k FkkA bl fn;k x;k mRrj dze esa gS]
ekeys esa blfy, bl ekeys dk fuiVkjk fd;k
vkius dsl ds tkrk gSA vihy nk;j djus ds fy,
lHkh "kqYd dh vko";drk ugha gSA
nLrkostksa blfy, #0 10@& ds iksLVy
dh] lR;kfir vkMZj fnukad 27@02@2015
izfr dh dkWih vihydrkZ dks okfil ykSVk;k
miyC/k djkus tk jgk gSA
dk vuqjks/k
fd;k gSA
vkidks lwfpr
fd;k tkrk gS
fd tgka rd
iwjh Qkby dh
lR;kfir izfr dk
iz"u gS] rks
og e/;jFkrk
izfdz;k dk
futh vkSj
xksiuh;
fgLLkk gksrk
gSA vkidks ;g
lwfpr fd;k
tkrk gS fd bl
dsl esa vxyh
rkjh[k
17@01@201
5 izkr% 11-30
cts gSA
5. 05.03.2015 fnYYkh mPp fnYYkh It was fnukad The FAA vide order dated
mPp informed to
Addressed U;k;ky; ls 05@03@2015 19.5.2015 that the reply given
U;k;ky; ls the applicant
to SPIO Mh0Mh0vkj0,l that at vkosnu esa ekaxh by the CPIO Head Office in
Mh0Mh0vkj
Nand Nagri 0 dks izkIr present the gqbZ lwpuk Jh the matter is in order. Thus
0 ,l0 dks society
o'kZ 2004 ls fiz;jatu vec'B] Jh the matter is disposed off.
The same izkIr o'kZ (DDRS) is
2015 vktrd 2004 ls Vh0lh0 frZFkkuh tu
was following
Mh0Mh0vkj- 2015 vktrd the Delhi lwpuk vf/kdkfj;ksa
transferred 0,l0 dk;Zjr High Court us miyC/k ugha
Mh0Mh0vkj
to PIO dk;kZy;ksa esa 0 ,l0 dk;Zjr Mediation djkbZ gSA vr%
Head office iz;qDr DHC, dk;kZy;ksa and
Jherh iwtk fnoku]
vide Conciliation
Mediation and esa iz;qDr izFke vihy vf/kdkjh
Rule 2004.
section Conciliation DHC, In case you ls vuqjks/k gS fd
6(3) of RTI Rules dh lR;kfir
Mediation need a copy fnukad
Act, 2005. and of the Rules,
izfr tufgr ds fy, Conciliation the same
05@03@2015
ns"k dk "kqHk Rules dh may be vkosnu] esa ekaxh
fpard vkosnd lR;kfir izfr obtained gqbZ tkudkjh] lwpuk
izkFkhZ dks tufgr ds fy, from the yksd tufgr ds fy,
website of
fu/kkZfjr vof/k ns"k dk
the Delhi
vkosnd izkFkhZ dks
ds varxZr "kqHk fpard High Court. fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds
miyC/k djk vkosnd varxZr miyC/k djk
izkFkhZ dks
nsaA
fu/kkZfjr
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 5
vof/k ds nsaA
varxZr
miyC/k djk
nsaA
6. 24.11.2015 fnukad vkids }kjk 12.01.2015:- The The First Appellate Authority
Addressed 01@11@2014 ekaxh xbZ Applicant has fixed the hearing for
to SPIO ds lanHkZ esa] lwpuk tks fd requested vide that 23.01.2015 at 3.00 p.m. at
lanHkZ la[;k
Nand Nagri Fkkuk said RTI to provide Head Office. Accordingly the
1657@,u,u@ih
ekuljksoj ikdZ] certified copies of all Appellant was requested vide
,l,e,l@2014
"kkgnjk] fnYyh fnukad the documents letter dated 03.03.2015 to
110032 }kjk 07@11@2014 pertaining to the appear before the First
izsf'kr] I;kjs ds rgr~ I;kjs matter of Pyare Lal, Appellate Authority on
yky] v"kksd yky o vU; cuke Ashok Kumar, J.D. 23.01.2015 at 3.00 p.m. The
dqekj] ts0 t; /kkjk flag o Singh which was Appellant did not appear. He
Mh0flag ukfer vU; ds ekeys ls referred from PS appeared on the next date i.e.
iwjh QkbZy ds lacaf/kr gSA bl Mansarovar Park. 03.02.2015.
ekeys esa
lHkh
e/;jFkrk dsUnz The First Appellate Authority
nLrkostksa dh esa ;g ekeyk
lR;kfir izfr] after hearing and going
Fkkuk
vkosnd dks] through the reply of SPIO
ekuljksoj ikdZ
vof/k ds varxZr Nand Nagri found that the
ls e/;jFkrk
iznku djsaA dsUnz esa reply given by the SPIO Nand
07@11@2014 Nagri is in order. The matter
dks vk;k FkkA was thus closed.
bl ekeys esa
vkius dsl ds
lHkh
nLrkostksa dh
lR;kfir izfr dh
dkWih miyC/k
djkus dk
vuqjks/k fd;k
gSA vkidks
lwfpr fd;k tkrk
gS fd tgka rd
iwjh Qkby dh
lR;kfir izfr dk
iz"u gS] rks og
e/;jFkrk izfdz;k
dk futh vkSj
xksiuh; fgLlk
gksrk gSA
7. 09.07.15 Ok'kZ 2004 ls Ok'kZ 2004 vkidh
Addressed o'kZ 2015 vktd ls o'kZ 2015 vkj0Vh0vk
to SPIO fnYyh fookn vktd fnYyh bZ vkosnu
fookn fnukad
Nand Nagri lek/kku lfefr
lek/kku lfefr 09@07@2
jftLVZM dk;Zjr
The same jftLVZM 015 ds
e/;jFkrk dsUnz dk;Zjr lanHkZ esa
was dk;kZy;ksa us e/;jFkrk tks fd
transferred yksdtufgr ds fy, dsUnz e/;jFkrk
to PIO f"kdk;rdrkZvks dk;kZy;ksa dsUnz uUn
Head office a rFkk us yksdtufgr uxjh }kjk
vide izfrokfn;ksa ds ds fy, vkj0Vh0
section c;ku ntZ djus ds f"kdk;rdrkZ vkbZ0 ,DV
6(3) of RTI vf/kdkjksa dh
vksa rFkk 2005 ds
Act, 2005. izfrokfn;ksa varxZr
ekax djh gS ds c;ku ntZ /kkjk 6 dh
vFkok o'kZ djus ds mi /kkjk 3
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 6
2004 ls o'kZ vf/kdkjksa ds rgr
2015 vktd ekax dh ekax djh iz/kku
ugha djh gSA gS vFkok dk;kZy;
o'kZ 2004 ls dks
vkosnu esa
o'kZ 2015 lhukarfjr
ekaxh xbZ vktd ekax fd;k x;k
tkudkjh lwpuk ugha djh Fkk bl
yksdtufgr ds fy, gSA vkosnu laca/k esa
vkosnd esa ekaxh vkidks
izkFkhZ dks xbZ tkudkjh lwfpr fd;k
fu/kkZfjr vof/k lwpuk tkrk gS fd
ds varxZr yksdtufgr ds vkids }kjk
miyC/k djk fy, vkosnd vkosnu esa
izkFkhZ dks iwNk x;k
nsaA
fu/kkZfjr iz"u Li'V
vof/k ds ugha gS bl
varxZr dkj.k ls
miyC/k djk vkids iz"u
nsaA dk mRrj
nsus esa ge
vleFkZ
gSA
d`i;k vkils
fuosnu gS
fd vki vius
iz"u dks
Li'V djsa
rkfd ge
vkids iz"u
dk mRrj ns
ldsA
DECISION:
5. Commissions in the case of Rama Aggarwal v. PIO, Delhi State Legal Service Authority [CIC/SA/A/2015/000305] in relation to Mediation proceedings had observed as follows:
"Confidentiality of Conciliation proceeding:
12. As per the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, the Conciliator and the parties must keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Article 14 of Rules says: 'Subject to agreement of the parties or mandatory law, the provisions prohibit disclosure to outsiders of any matters relating to the conciliation proceedings.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 7 Such guarantee of confidentiality is conducive to reaching an amicable settlement in informal proceedings'. Confidentiality extends also the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement.
Confidentiality is a merit of mediation. It is also considered as ethics of this dispute resolution process which achieved states as best alternative to litigation. Those who fear the undue publicity, possibility of invasion of privacy and defamation, avoid litigation in court of law, complaint to police station and prefer a confidential, closed door discussion to sort out the differences and resolving the misunderstandings that threaten the relationship in either business or marriage. THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
13. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, has provided for confidentiality norm for conciliation/mediation proceedings and also made the evidence of mediation no admissible in other court proceedings.
70. Disclosure of information.
When the conciliator receives factual information concerning the dispute from a party, he shall disclose the substance of that information to the other party in order that the other party may have the opportunity to present any explanation which he considers appropriate: Provided that when a party gives any information to the conciliator, subject to a specific condition that it be kept confidential, the conciliator shall not disclose that information to the other party.
75. Confidentiality.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time bring in force, the conciliator and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement.
81. Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 8 The parties shall not rely on or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not such proceedings relate to the dispute that is the subject of the conciliation proceedings, a. views expressed or suggestions made by the other party in respect of a possible settlement of the dispute;
b. admissions made by the other party in the course, of the conciliation proceedings;
c. proposals made by the conciliator;
d. the fact that the other party had indicated his willingness to accept a proposal for settlement made by the conciliator.
MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION RULES, 2004
14. Rule 20 : Confidentiality, disclosure and inadmissibility of information.
(a) When a mediator/conciliator receives factual information concerning the dispute(s) from any party, he shall disclose the substance of that information to the other party, so that the other party may have an opportunity to present such explanation as it may consider appropriate.
Provided that, when a party gives information to the mediator/conciliator subject to a specific condition that it be kept confidential, the mediator/conciliator shall not disclose that information to the other party.
(b) Receipt or perusal, or preparation of records, reports or other documents by the mediator/conciliator, while serving in that capacity shall be confidential and the mediator/conciliator shall not be compelled to divulge information regarding those documents nor as to what transpired during the mediation/conciliation before any court of tribunal or any other authority or any person or group of persons.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 9
(c) Parties shall maintain confidentiality in respect of events that transpired
during the mediation/conciliation and shall not rely on or introduce the said information in other proceedings as to:
i. views expressed by a party in the course of the mediation/conciliation proceedings;
ii. documents obtained during the mediation/conciliation which were expressly required to be treated as confidential or other notes, drafts or information given by the parties or the mediator/conciliator;
iii. proposals made or views expressed by the mediator / conciliator.
iv. admission made by a party in the course of mediation/conciliation proceedings;
v. the fact that a party had or had not indicated willingness to accept a proposal;
(d) There shall be no audio or video recording of the mediation/conciliation proceedings.
(e) No statement of parties or the witnesses shall be recorded by the mediator/conciliator.
Rule 21 : Privacy.
The Mediation/conciliation sessions or meetings would be conducted in privacy where the persons as mentioned in Rule 12 shall be entitled to represent parties. However, other persons may attend only with the permission of the parties and with the consent of the mediator/conciliator. Confidentiality is at the heart of a mediation proceedings and is critical to a successful resolution. The parties must be assured that they can share sensitive information at the mediation session, where it is necessary to see that their true needs and interests CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 10 may be met, without fear of subsequent disclosure to their detriment. Such confidentiality plays an important role both in the joint sessions involving all of the disputants at the mediation session as well as in private caucuses which the mediator may have with one or more of the parties during the course of the session. This is the rule worldwide.
Supreme Court assures confidentiality
15. The Supreme Court assured the confidentiality of the process in two judgments. In Moti Ram(D) Thr. L.Rs. and Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr., Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra JJ, explained:
In this connection, we would like to state that mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceedings. This is unlike proceedings in Court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, then the mediator should send the agreement signed by both the parties to the Court without mentioning what transpired during the mediation proceedings. If the mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the Court stating that the 'Mediation has been unsuccessful'. Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process."
16. The Supreme Court said in yet another case of Haresh Dayaram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2000 SC 2281, D.P. Mohapatra and RP Sethi, JJ said:
Section 67 which makes provision regarding role of conciliator provides in Subsection (I) that the conciliator shall assist the parties in an independent CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 11 and impartial manner in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. In Subsection (2) thereof, it is provided that the conciliator shall be guided by principles of objectivity, fairness and justice, giving consideration to, among other things, the rights and obligations of the parties, the usages of the trade concerned and the circumstances surrounding the dispute including any previous business practices between the parties. In Sub section (4) of Section 67 it is laid down that the conciliator may, at any stage of the conciliation proceedings, make proposals for a settlement of the dispute. Such proposals need not be in writing and need not be accompanied by a statement of the reasons therefore. Section 69 contains the provision regarding communication between conciliator and parties whether orally or in writing and about the place of meeting etc. In Section 70 provision is made regarding disclosure of information. Therein it is provided, inter alia, that when the conciliator receives factual information concerning the dispute from a party, he shall disclose the substance of that information to the other party in order that the other party may have the opportunity to present any explanation which he considers appropriate. In the proviso to the section it is stated that when a party gives any information to the conciliator subject to a specific condition that it be kept confidential, the conciliator shall not disclose that information to the other party. Under Section72 it is laid down that each party may, on his own initiative or at the invitation of the conciliator, submit to the conciliator suggestions for the settlement of the dispute. Section 75 which incorporates in the status the confidentiality clause provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the conciliator and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 12
RTI Act v A&C Act
17. The RTI Act will definitely override the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and information has to be disclosed subject to RTI Act. Even under RTI Act, we need to examine the provisions of exceptions under Section (8) of the RTI Act, 2005 that enlists some special instances when the authorities are exempted from disclosing information sought for.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts from disclosure information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
18. The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. Anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary capacity. Therefore communication made during conciliation proceeding between the parties and also communication between mediator and other parties, qualifies to be made in fiduciary capacity.
The proceedings of Mediation are supposed to be protected under Section 8(1)(j) also, which says:
"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person".
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 13 Larger public interest is an exception for these two exemptions. But in the interest of conciliation in general as an alternative dispute proceedings there is a need to protect the confidentiality. The moment the proceedings of the mediation are allowed to be disclosed in the form of certified copies under RTI Act, or evidence in other proceedings or publicized openly, the parties will not prefer mediation or conciliation, which will increase pendency, stress and burden on the courts besides delaying the marital dispute resolutions affecting several families. Even the parties would lose possibility of resolving. Mediation is best alternative dispute resolution process for domestic disputes, only because the parties cannot use this proceeding for obtaining the material to use in litigation. Mediation process cannot be used by parties as prelitigation step to collect material. If RTI is allowed to be exercised in securing information about mediation, cantankerous spouse will exploit mediation as a source to get information with which they can harass the other spouse and use it in courts of law also. Thus the public interest in disclosure of the information, if any, is not higher than that in protection of mediation proceedings as per Section 8(2). Comparatively there is a higher public interest in protecting the confidentiality and privacy of the proceedings of mediation and there is no public interest in disclosure. Hence under Section 8(2) information about mediation proceedings cannot be given. As there is no larger public interest, the mediation information attracts provisions of exemptions under Section 8(1) (e) and (j). Hence cannot be disclosed. "
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 14
6. The Commission having heard the submissions finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the Public Authority. Commission also directs the respondent authority not to disclose mediation proceedings between the parties as stated above. With this observation, the present appeal is CLOSED.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 15 Deputy Secretary Address of the parties :
1. The PIO under RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi Delhi Disputes Resolution Society (Regd) Department of Law Justice and Legislative Affairs, Ground Floor, BBlock, Vikas BhawanII, Civil Lines, Near Metcalf House Delhi110054.
2. Shri J.D.Singh 1/3901, Bhagwan Pur Khere, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi110032.
CIC/SA/A/2015/001051 Page 16