Central Information Commission
Narinder Kumar Gupta vs National Human Rights Commission on 25 October, 2024
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/NHRCM/C/2023/646029
Shri NARINDER KUMAR GUPTA निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Human Rights Commission
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024
Date of Decision : 23.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.08.2023
PIO replied on : 21.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on :
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Authenticated, unabridged copies of all correspondences, encompassing letters, emails, memorandums, notifications, and any other written. communications exchanged between the esteemed National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and any pertinent entities, be they law enforcement agencies, officials, or any stakeholders directly implicated in the complaint. This comprehensive compilation of correspondences should delineate each stage of the complaint's trajectory, comprising its inception, processing, investigation, and eventual disposition.
2. A comprehensive compilation of all file notings, minutes of meetings, internal memos, and analogous documentation that is intrinsically connected to the deliberation, evaluation, and governance of my complaint within the hallowed halls of the NHRC. The conveyance of Page 1 these intricate threads of administrative discourse is indispensable in unraveling the narrative underpinning the decision-making apparatus.
3. An exhaustive record, replete with meticulous detail, chronicling the tangible actions undertaken by the NHRC in direct response to the complaint in question. This is inclusive of but not limited to decisions rendered, recommendations proffered, directives disseminated, and any other consequential steps executed in consequence of the NHRC's engagement with the substantive aspects of the complaint.
4. Copies of all comprehensive reports, findings, determinations, and analytical insights precipitated as the culmination of the investigation, scrutiny, or review of my aforementioned complaint. These scholarly outputs are integral in contextualizing the impetus, mechanics, and outcomes of the investigative endeavor.
5. Unveiling of all documents, reports, and written communications that have formed the bedrock for the NHRC's categorization of the issues encapsulated within my complaint as falling within the purview of a "civil dispute," as per the stipulations enunciated in the NHRC's official communication bearing date 21-08-2023 (attached herewith). The rationale underpinning this classification merits lucid elucidation, warranting a discernible understanding of the categorization's roots.
6. Disclosure of any supplementary documentation, records, or materials that the venerable NHRC, as a repository of wisdom and discernment, deems indispensable for rendering an all-encompassing perspective on the management, evaluation, and disposition of my complaint. This facet of the request embraces the autonomy of the NHRC to determine the boundaries of information that enriches comprehension."
The CPIO, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.09.2023 replied as under:-Point No.1 to 6
It is to inform that complaint dated 11.08.2023 received vide Diary No. 13174/IN/2023 has been registered as Case No. 143/9/5/2023. The case stands dismissed by the Commission vide its proceedings dated 21.08.2023 (copy enclosed).
The NHRC (Procedure) Regulations 1997 does not provide for any file noting in the process of disposal of a complaint. As such no file noting is maintained by the Commission. It is further to clarify that RTI Act provides access to any information held by a public authority but cast no obligation upon the PIO to provide the information which is not available on records.
The complaints in NHRC are dealt as per Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the NHRC (Procedure) Amendment Regulations, 1997 Page 2 and the same can be accessed in the NHRC web-site i.e. www.nhrc.nic.in."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed First Appeal 23.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.10.2023 stated as under :
As per the Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Commission shall, while enquiring into the complaint under the Act, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and every proceedings before the Commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 & 228, and for the purpose of Section 196 of Indian Penal Code.
As such the CPIO or the undersigned First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act has no jurisdiction to explain the grounds for the dismissal of the complaint lodged by the appellant in the Commission. The CPIO has also made clear that no file noting etc. was maintained in this matter in the Commission. However, a computer generated copy of the registration details of case/file No. 143/9/5/2023, and a copy of the proceedings dated 21.08.2023 downloaded from the CMS of the Commission, be provided to the appellant, which appear to be relevant to his request made in the RTI application/appeal.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 08.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 15.10.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Assistant Registrar, NHRC- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. He further stated that the complete case file noting has not be provided to him.
Page 3 The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant. He stated that a computer- generated copy of the registration details of case/file No. 143/9/5/2023 and a copy of proceedings dated 21.08.2023 were provided to the Complainant. He stated that file noting is not maintained in their official records.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...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."
xxx Page 4 "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."
xxx "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...."
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. No further action lies.
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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)