Central Information Commission
S.V. Deshpande vs Central Hindi Directorate on 15 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CHTIN/A/2019/645223
S.V Deshpande ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Hindi Directorate,
Deptt. Higher Education, RTI
Cell, West Block-7, Rama Krishna
Puram, New Delhi - 110066. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/12/2021
Date of Decision : 14/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/10/2018
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/07/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2018 seeking the following information;
1. "Please inform me if there are any union government agencies, ministries, institutions, organisations working for the development of this different form of Hindi language mentioned in the Presidents orders 1960;
and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1) dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)].
2. Please inform me if the translation works to be done in this different form of Hindi language mentioned in the Presidents order [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87- OL (A-1) dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)] is over or still pending.
3. Please let me know the names and short history of working committees, having language experts of different Indian languages, established by the union government, for developing the Hindi language mentioned in the article 343(1), by inclusion of appropriate forms, styles, expressions, phrases and words from different Indian languages, as per the directives given in the article 351, and constitutionally, legally supported by the Presidents orders in 1960 and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1) dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)]; since from the Presidents order of 1960 onwards.
4. Please give me scanned or pdf copies of reports submitted by the working committees, having language experts from different Indian languages, established by the union government, for developing the Hindi language mentioned in the article 343(1), by inclusion of appropriate forms, styles, expressions, phrases and words from different Indian languages, as per the directives given in the article 351 and constitutionally, legally supported by the Presidents order 1960 and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1) dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)]; since from the Presidents order of 1960 onwards.
5. Please let me know the names of the institutes, established by the union government which teach this different form of Hindi language mentioned in the Presidents orders 1960 and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1), dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)], and supporting the directives given in the article 351.
6. Please give me a copy of the circulars sent by the union government to Ministry of Education of different states, different educational boards in India, for teaching this different form of Hindi language mentioned in the Presidents orders 1960 and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1), dated 2 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)] in schools, under the three language formula, for the cause of in the article 351.
7. Please let me know the reasons behind the government apathy, inability or reluctance; if this different form of Hindi, {mentioned in the Presidents orders 1960 and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1) dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)} which is in the interest of unity and integrity of India, as per the Presidents order, is not developed still today.
8. Many Presidents order given in the following list of Presidents order are implemented quickly but this order related to development of the different form of Hindi language as per the directives given in the article 351 is not implemented still today ; {Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Official Language Date: 5 December, 2017 - RESOLUTION No. 20012/2/2017-O.L. (Policy) - Part 1} So please let me know the reasons behind the discrimination in implementation of Presidents orders selectively and not developing this different form of Hindi language as per the Presidents orders 1960 and 1990 concurring with the essence of article 351.
9. If the language Hindi given in the article 343(1) to be developed as per the directives given in the article 351, and the language Hindi mentioned in the 8th schedule of our constitution are one and the same; please let me know the legal, constitutional reasoning behind the Presidents orders, {Copy of Notification No. 2/8/60-O.L. (Ministry of Home Affairs), dated 27th April, 1960} and [Resolution No. I/20012/1/87-OL (A-1), dated 30.12.1990. Item No. 2(J) (28)] Wherein, it is ordered to develop the language Hindi given in article 343(1) as per the directives given in the article 351 for the most sacred cause of national integration and unity.
10. Please let me know if the article 351 is null and void, not of any constitutional value; due to non-implementation of these above mentioned orders of the Presidents 1960 and 1990, {wherein it is clearly ordered to develop the language Hindi mentioned in the article 343(1) as per the directives given in the article 351}, still today."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-3
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Dr. Anita Dagore, Assistant Director & PIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that the desired information has not been provided to him and the subject matter of his RTI Application concerns larger public interest.
The Commission remarked at the very outset that the information sought for by the Appellant is not in conformity with Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for clarifications and explanations based on extensive speculative queries questioning policy matters related to the development of Hindi Language in the context of Constitutional provisions. Yet, the CPIO has attempted to provide a factual reply to the issues raised in the RTI Application as per the written submissions received vide letter dated 03.12.2021, copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant.
Decision:
In furtherance of the observations made during the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 as the Appellant has prefixed the RTI queries with a detailed narrative running into several pages. As it appears it would be rather unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher reasons/logic/justifications for policy matters.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which 4 require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, the Commission observes that the issues raised by the Appellant in the grounds of the Second Appeal questioning the policy matters are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes." Emphasis Supplied In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5