Central Information Commission
Tapan Yadav vs Indian Army on 6 March, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/149523
Tapan Yadav ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Rashtriya Military School,
Ajmer,
Rajasthan - 305001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/05/2018
CPIO replied on : 28/05/2018, 14/07/2018
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2018
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 04/08/2018
Date of Hearing : 04/03/2020
Date of Decision : 04/03/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought details of inquiry conducted against him by the Sexual Harassment Committee of RMS Ajmer in Sept. 2014 on a complaint of Mrs. Pragya in terms of final outcome of the inquiry and documents related to the inquiry.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Maj. Yashashvi Shekhawat, Adm. Officer & PIO, Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer, Rajasthan present through VC.
Commission remarked upon perusal of facts on record that the denial of information citing Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 by the PIO is not appropriate. It was further observed that since information sought largely pertains to the final inquiry report of the Committee and the Appellant being the opposite party/respondent in the said inquiry has every right to seek the details of the inquiry.
PIO did not object to the observation of the Commission and agreed to abide by its order. She however stated that the concerned records are available with MT-7, Army HQ.
Decision Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 (referred as Act herein after) provides as under:
"16. Prohibition of publication or making known contents of complaint and inquiry proceedings.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the contents of the complaint made under section 9, the identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, and the action taken by the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of this Act shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner:
Provided that information may be disseminated regarding the justice secured to any victim of sexual harassment under this Act without disclosing the name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the aggrieved woman and witnesses."2
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/149523 In the facts of the instant case, Commission relies upon a decision dated 01.07.2016 of a coordinate bench wherein the scope and ambit of Section 16 of the Act has been extensively dwelled upon in a set of Appeal(s) registered vide File Nos. CIC/YA/A/2016/000299 and CIC/YA/A/2016/000282. The observations of the coordinate bench are reproduced hereunder:
"...The limited question of law emanating from the present appeals may be formulated as follows:
Whether section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 operates as an embargo over the right of a victim/complainant of Sexual Harassment to access information relating to inquiry proceedings, recommendations of internal committee/local committee, statements of complainant/respondent and witnesses ; under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted by the Parliament to prevent harassment of women at workplace besides prescribing panel provisions for the offenders. A reference may be made to the Preamble of the aforesaid enactment to gather intent of the legislature:
An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The intent of the legislature is loud & manifest. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of any enactment are to be interpreted in a manner which furthers the cause or purpose behind its enactment. Section 16 is enacted as a safeguard measure to check further aggravation of traumatic & stigmatic experience of a victim of sexual harassment against by unwarranted disclosure of her identity.3
Natural justice requires that all parties having proximate nexus with any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding or its outcome to be kept abreast. The expression 'shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public, press and media in any manner' as employed in Section 16 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 operates against disclosures made to three categories only. They are public, press & media. The expression cannot be stretched to assign altogether different meaning so as to include the 'complainant' within the prohibited degree of classes, to deny information relating to proceedings under the Act. If the aforesaid contention of the CPIO & FAA is accepted, the aforesaid provision would compound the harassment of the victim rather than mitigate it.
Though, the information relating to the proceedings & findings of Internal Complaints Committee while dealing with any incidence of sexual harassment, must be voluntarily made available to the victim; however, if the same is not done, I do not find Section 16 of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 to be eclipsing the right of a complainant/victim of sexual harassment to access the same under RTI Act, 2005. Section 16 (ibid) merely eclipses the right to know of the public at large, press and media only. Thus, the legal proposition remains that, a complainant/victim of an incident of sexual harassment as per the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act can access information through the RTI Act,2005...."
The aforesaid analogy squarely applies to the case where the opposite party in such cases is seeking the inquiry details and its final outcome under RTI Act. Even further, we note that Section 13 of the Act provides as under:
13. Inquiry report.--(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.4
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2018/149523 Adverting to the reasoning of the coordinate bench as referred above, in the instant case, where Appellant being the averred opposite party in the sexual harassment case is entitled for getting the details of inquiry as per Section 13(1) of the Act, in view of which, Section 16 of the Act will not override the Appellant's right to seek this information under RTI Act.
However, in the considered opinion of this bench it will be prudent to withhold the names of witnesses, figuring in the inquiry proceedings by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. This is warranted, notwithstanding the above said proposition that Section 16 of the Act will not override Appellant's right to information in this case. This is so, in as much as when said information is sought under RTI Act, public authorities and the Commission are well within their scope of powers to analyse the implication of disclosure of information vis-a-vis the various exemption clauses under Section 8 and/or 9 therein.
DECISION In view of the forgoing, PIO is directed to provide the available information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost after adequately blacking out the names and any such details which lead to the identity of witnesses figuring in the relevant documents. The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.
As regards PIO's claim that the relevant records are held with MT-7, Army HQ, Commission directs the PIO to procure the same from MT-7, Army HQ and in doing so; she is at liberty to serve a copy of this order on the concerned record holder to ensure timely compliance of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
5
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
6