Central Information Commission
Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001472/4245
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001472
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma,
C/o Central Jail No. 1,
New Delhi-110064.
Respondent : Mr. B.M.Jain
Public Information Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Home(General) Department, 5th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi.-110002.
RTI Application filed on : 27/10/2008
PIO replied : 20/11/2008
First Appeal filed to CIC : 30/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 25/02/2009
Second Appeal received on : 20/05/2009
Sl. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. Number of application of parole from
1st Jan 2008 to 30 June 2008. Point
wise as follows: Receive - 121.
• Total requests received. Accepted - 13.
• Total requests accepted. Rejected - 90.
• Total requests rejected. Under Process - 18.
2. Regarding each application - Male & Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 bars Female. disclosure of "Personal Information the • Name & parentage. disclosure of which has no relationship to • Date of application. any public activity or interest or which will • Date of release on parole or cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy • Date of rejection of parole & of the individual unless the CPIO or the its reasons as per file notings.State PIO or the appellate authority, as the • Time taken in case may be, is satisfied that the larger Police verification. public interest justifies the disclosure of such information". Moreover disclosure of the information may be harmful to those persons/applicant of parole.
3. Sanctioning authority of parole - Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi is the designation. competent sanctioning authority for parole.
4. Appellant authority in case of There is no provision of appeal in case of rejection of parole application - rejection of parole. designation.
5. Time Limit fixed -in days- for parole No tile limit is specified for parole processing :- processing.
• Prison Department.
• District Police/verification.
• Dy. Commissioner/D.M. • Sanctioning authority.
• Appellant authority.
6. Total days of parole permitted in one No limit for grant of parole is specified in calendar year. any calendar year.
7. Grounds, reasons permitted for A prisoner may be released on parole for availing / applying for parole. such period as the Competent Authority may order. Parole shall be admissible for:
• Seeing any sick of dying member of the family.
• Any other sufficient cause as marriage of the prisoner or any other member of the family. i.e. son, daughter, sister, brother etc. • For construction of a house.
• Any other emergent grounds/unforeseen circumstances deemed genuine by the competent authority.
8. Please detail any minimum embargo There is no embargo period fixed between period fixed between date of return date of return from parole and fresh from parole and fresh application for application for next parole application. next parole application.
9. Police verification; is it Yes, police verification report is necessary necessary/done for each parole or for processing the parole case. otherwise please elaborate.
10. Eligibility for parole; it happens after A convict is entitled for parole when:-
• Conviction or • He has not filed any appeal against • After appeal decision or his Conviction or • After minimum years of prison • If the appeal is already time barred custody. Please elaborate under Limitation Act.or eligibility conditions. • If the appeal stood disposed by the Hon'ble High Court.
11. What offences, conduct disqualify a While considering the parole applications.
convict for parole? Time conduct of convict during custody in prisons and threat to the public from the law & order point of view will generally disqualify the convict form grant of parole.
12. Is parole counted as part of sentence The period of parole is counted as a part of or no. emergency parole for convicts? sentence undergone. • Eligibility criteria/conditions. • Sanctioning authority.
• Maximum time permitted.
13. The requisite information does not There is provision of Emergency/Custody pertain to the provisions of RTI Act, parole for the convicts in emergent cases for 2005 a period of not more than six hours in the following circumstances.
• Death of a family member.
• Marriage of a family member.
• Serious illness of a family member. • Any other emergent circumstances. A copy of notification No. F.9/67/2006- HOME(G)/4400-4409 dated 23-11-2006 had provided to the appellant.
Grounds for First Appeal :
The PIO had deemed the information in respect with Q. No. 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) by using section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not providing the sought information & violation of RTI Act, 2005 by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The information sought by the appellant was denied by the PIO under the provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that the disclosure of the required information had no relationship to any public activity or interest and also belongs to other persons which may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned individuals. In addition, PIO also informed to the Appellate Authority that the office does not maintain the record as per the format, submitted by the appellant.
After going through the contention of the appellant and the record. Appellant satisfied with the reply already given to the petitioner by the PIO".
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The spirit behind the RTI Act is to bring transparency in the functioning of the government. By denying information related to actual execution of the Govt. Policy and the Supreme Court directives, the home deptt. Is attempting to introduce arbitrary opaqueness and avoiding accountability of the Govt. Department and officials. It must be noted. Incomplete & incorrect misleading information that had been requested.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent Respondent : Mr. Honey Goel on behalf of PIO Mr. B.M.Jain The Respondent has denied the information of query 2 on the gourd that this information being considered exempt under Section 8(1) (j) no reasoning has been given as to how disclosure of the details those who asked for parole can be considered invasion on the privacy of an individual. It is necessary that the PIO must explain the reasoning of how disclosure of information would constitute an invasion of privacy. In view of this the PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information on query 2 for the period 1st Jan 2008 to 30 June 2008 to the Appellant before 10 August 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23rd July, 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (BK)