Central Information Commission
Miss. Umesh Singh vs President Secretariat on 28 March, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000975
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28 March 2012
Date of decision : 28 March 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Umesh Singh,
S/o. Shri Vishnu Singh,
Vill N. Shand, Post - Sirhol,
Jaswant Nagar, Distt - Etawah.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, President's Secretariat,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 004.
CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri J.G. Subramanian, ACPIO, President's Secretariat,
(ii) Shri David, DIG,
(iii) Shri Ashit Kumar Das, AD (Legal),
(iv) Shri B.S. Rawat, AS (Recruitment) Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant had informed in writing that he would not be able to attend the hearing today in the Etawah studio of the NIC due to some personal problems and had requested the CIC to dispose of the case in his absence. The Respondents representing the President Secretariat and the Ministry of CIC/SM/A/2011/000975 Home Affairs/SSB were present in our chamber and made their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought a large number of information regarding his complaint against the irregularities committed in the recruitment of constables. The CPIO had transferred his RTI application to the Ministry of Home Affairs which, in turn, had further transferred it to the SSB. The CPIO of that organisation had written to him claiming that the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act did not apply to the SSB and, therefore, the desired information could not be provided. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this decision.
4. As per the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the SSB has been included in the Second Schedule by the decision of the Central Government. The provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would, therefore, not apply to this organisation except in the case of allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The Respondents argued that although the Appellant had alleged that there was corruption in the recruitment process, the allegation was unfounded and the Appellant had not succeeded in the recruitment on merits.
5. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we tend to agree with the decision of the CPIO/Appellate Authority. The desired information cannot be disclosed as the SSB is not obliged to provide any information in terms of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The present case is not covered by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act in the sense that it is not information about human rights violation or about allegations of corruption. We must note that mere suspicion or allegation of corruption is not enough to warrant such exempted organisations to be brought under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) CIC/SM/A/2011/000975 Act; the allegation must be backed by credible evidence. The allegation of corruption made by the Appellant in this case is not backed by any such evidence.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/000975