Central Information Commission
Mr.Harish Kumar vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 11 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000460 dated 31.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Harish Kumar
Respondent - Lok Sabha Secretariat
Decision announced: 11.6.2010
Facts:
By an application of 1.9.08 Shri Harish Kumar of Pul Mithai, Delhi applied to the CPIO Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide details of statues / portraits of National Leaders, Parliamentarians & Martyrs installed in Parliament House Complex, giving details of name of statue/portrait, name of its proposer, name of organization, date of installation, who unveiled it, Number and date of approval by Joint Parliamentarians Committee for installation of Portraits / statues of National Leaders, and guidelines for installation of these.
2. Kindly provide names and other details of the Chairman & Members of the Joint Parliamentarians Committee for installation of Statues / Portraits of National Leaders in the Parliament House, as at present.
3. Kindly provide details of Portraits of National Leaders and Parliamentarians, installed in Parliament House and Parliament House Complex giving details of name of statue/portrait, name of its proposer, name of organization / donor, date of installation, date of unveiling, who unveiled it, Number and date of approval by Joint Parliamentarians Committee for installation of Portraits / statues of National Leaders, along with copy of existing directions for installation of the same.
4. Kindly provide details of cases for installation of Statues / portraits in Parliament House, which are pending for consideration giving name of Statue / portrait, name and address of organization/donor, donating the same, date of receipt of proposal and date of submission before Joint Parliamentarian Committee for approval.
5. Is it compulsory to obtain permission from Delhi Urban Arts Commission for installation of portrait / Statue in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe?1
6. Kindly provide details of places where statues / portraits have been / can be installed in Lok Sabha Hall, Rajya Sabha Hall and Central Hall of Parliament House."
To this Shri Harish Kumar received a response on 30.9.08 asking for further fees and on payment of the same received the following response from Dy. Secretary Shri K. L. Arora, Lok Sabha Secretariat dated 6.10.08:
"In continuation of this Secretariat letter of even umber dated 30.9.2008, I am directed to forward 7 pages of information as desired by you."
Attached with this is the following statement:
Q. No. 1 (a) The details of other place of installation, dates of unveiling, donor etc. Are given in Annexure 1.
(b) The details of guidelines regarding acceptance of the proposal for the installation of Portraits/ statues in the Parliament House Complex are at Annexure II.
Q. No. 2 Please see annexure III.
Q. No. 3 Please see Annexure I & III.
Q. No. 4 The compilation of the information spread over a long period of time would divert the attention and the limited resources of the Secretariat and, therefore, it would take inordinately long time and therefore, cannot be provided.
Q. No. 5 No
Q. No. 6 The Statues and Portraits are installed at the
locations as directed by the Joint Committee of Parliament on installation of statues/ portraits of National Leaders and Parliamentarians in Parliament House complex.
In his appeal dated 5.10.08 (which should have been dated 5.11.08, as confirmed by the appellant in the hearing), Shri Harish Kumar has objected to the information provided against Q. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Upon this he received the following order from Appellate Authority Shri S. K. Sharma, Secretary, Lok Sabha Sectt. dated 5.12.08:
2"After examining the relevant papers I find that the concerned division of this Secretariat has provided information as was held and maintained by them. The division ahs further stated that providing information on various aspects of statues/ portraits for a period of 1947-2000 would involve tremendous labour and disproportionately divert the resources which is exempted under section 7 (9) RTI Act, 2005.' Appellant Shri Harish Kumar's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"Please provide me full information as per application and direction of Right to Information Act, 2005."
He has further submitted against each of the question Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 shortcomings perceived by him in the answers provided to each. The appeal was heard on 11.6.2010. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Harish Kumar Respondents Shri Harish Chander, Dy. Secy.
Shri Kushal Sarkar, Dy. Secy.
Shri Arun Kandpal, SEA Shri S.S. Pradhan, Executive Asstt.
CPIO Shri Harish Chander, DS clarified that Annexure I of the list comprised only statues. The number was 146 and not 144, which is the number provided earlier to the appellant. The latest updated list was handed over to appellant. Appellant, however, submitted that what he had asked for was the decision of the Committee for installation of these statues, none of which had been provided to him. CPIO Shri Harish Chander submitted that this was the information spread over a long period of time in numerous files, which would be difficult to compile without diverting the attention and the limited resources available to the Secretariat, which has been argued in answer to Q. No. 4, which refers to statues/portraits installed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. However, a list of portraits installed in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which was not included in the answer to Q 1, was also provided to appellant in the hearing. On question No. 4, which had not been answered in the initial response, a list of pending requests 3 was also presented to appellant Shri Harish Kumar in the hearing. On question No. 5, the answer received by Shri Harish Kumar is a plain 'No". It was Shri Harish Kumar's contention that this information was wrong because the relevant Act requires installation of all statues in Delhi to obtain the assent of the Urban Arts Commission.
DECISION NOTICE Between the information provided in response to his application and the information provided in the hearing, we find that most of the information sought by appellant Shri Harish Kumar has after the hearing, been provided to him. Nevertheless it also stands established that the record of Minutes of the Committee meetings from the period 1947 to 2000 is bulky and inspecting each to cull out the information regarding the decision taken on requests to install various statues and portraits will, in the present system of record keeping, be next to impossible. It was, therefore, agreed that both in terms of portraits and statues, CPIO Shri Harish Chander will provide any five illustrative samples of the decisions of the Committee on portraits and statues for the period 1993-2005 to appellant Shri Harish Kumar within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. Besides, because the installation of statues / portraits, the reasons for approval of the same and other details, as sought by appellant Shri Harish Kumar in the present case are matters not only of public interest but matters on which the public has a right to be informed, the Lok Sabha Secretariat will now, is directed u/s 8(1) (a) to compile this information within six months from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice, and having done so, place it on its website in accordance with sec. 4(1)(b)(xv). The appeal is thus allowed with regard to questions 1, 3, 4 & 6. On question 5, also challenged by appellant, we find that the objection is with regard to the legality of the respondents' action, which is not for this Commission to adjudicate upon. Appellant is free to approach the Urban Arts Commission in this regard. There will be no costs.4
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 11.6.2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 11.6.2010 5