Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Vice-President Secratariat on 6 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/VPSEC/A/2018/172989-BJ
Dr. Nutan Thakur
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary
Vice President's Secretariat
Moulana Azad Road
New Delhi - 110011
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2020
Date of Decision : 06.05.2020
Date of RTI application 11.09.2018
CPIO's response 17.09.2018/
11.10.2018
Date of the First Appeal 14.10.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 16.10.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the number of vehicles attached with Vice President Office for official use of President; year of purchase and price of each of these vehicles in official use of Vice President; total number of vehicles attached with Vice President office for security purposes and for security personnel along with Vice President and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, Vice President's Secretariat vide its letter dated 17.09.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point nos. 03 and 04, the RTI application was transferred to the PIO/DCP Police HQ, New Delhi and for other points, available information was provided. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 16.10.2018, upheld the CPIO's response and further advised the Appellant to contact the office of PIO (Security Unit), DCP, HQ, New Delhi for further query in this regard. The PIO cum DCP (Security) (HQ), vide its letter dated 11.10.2018 provided information on point nos. (i) & (ii) and (iii) to (v) of the RTI application.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nutan Thakur through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Ms. Hurbi Shakeel, US, Vice President's Secretariat and Mr. Satyavir Singh, ACP, Delhi Police through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was received. She contested the plea of the Respondent seeking protection under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the grounds that the information regarding number of vehicles could be furnished to her. In its reply, the Respondent (Delhi Police) emphasized on the security concerns and stated that this information could not be disclosed being sensitive relating to the VIP security. The reply had been received by the Appellant. The Respondent (Vice President's Secretariat) had stated that a suitable reply had already been furnished to the Appellant and for security matters, the issues had been transferred to PIO and DCP, Security, New Delhi. The Commission instructed the CPIO (Vice President's Secretariat) to provide a copy of the written submission to the Appellant at her e-mail address ([email protected]).
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Secretariat, Vice President of India) dated 19.02.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that all available information pertaining to their Secretariat had been provided to the Appellant and the Appellant was not aggrieved with any part of information provided by their Secretariat hence it was requested to drop the Secretariat as a party to the instant case. The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent dated 04.05.2020 wherein a reference was made to the aforementioned written submission dated 29.04.2020.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to Page 2 of 4 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Moreover, the Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. Respondent: Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On:
05.03.2013 wherein in the context of an RTI application seeking Certified Copy of the letter written by the Chief Minister of JandK, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India and records pertaining to any action taken it was held as under:
"7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The information sought pertains to a correspondence which emanated apparently from the Chief Minister of JandK, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India. Even according to the petitioner, the said letter pertains to the issue of deployment of defence forces in the State of JandK. There is no gain saying that JandK is a sugeneris State within the Union of India in respect of which the respondents would exchange information with State authorities from time having security implications. The background circumstances do point to the fact that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications. The judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other. In this particular case, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the information sought has security implications. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court would be slow to interfere with the decision arrived at in that behalf."Page 3 of 4
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and the security concerns raised by the Delhi Police and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) (बिमल जल्ु का) ू ना आयुक्त( (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] भदनांक / Date: 06.05.2020 Page 4 of 4