Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2022/650646
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Unique Identification Authority of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India(UIDAI)
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025
Date of Decision : 11.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2022
PIO replied on : 17.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 17.08.2022
First Appellate Order on : 12.09.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.09.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.06.2022 before Cabinet Secretariat, which was partially transferred to NITI Ayog and then further transferred to UIDAI off line on 15.07.2022 and online on 18.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. The record keeping and retention policies for the Notes for and other records related to Cabinet Committees.
2. The particulars (date and file number) of the communications by which the Planning Commission forwarded the Notes for: (a) the 5 meetings of CC-UIDAI for which press releases dated 18/05/10, 22/07/10, 27/01/12, 09/05/13 and 04/02/14 are found on PIB website (under Other Cabinet Committees), and (b) the Approval of Phase-V for which press release dated 10/09/14 is accessible through Cabinet Secretariat website link for CCEA
3. For all Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI-meaningful description (e.g., by way of statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) detailed with the information of the cataloguing and indexing u/s 4(1)(a) : and identifying for each item precisely who is to decide when to make it public)."Page 1 of 5
The CPIO, US (Admn. II), NITI Ayog furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.07.2022 stating as under:
1. "The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section-II.
2. The press release available on the PIB website for the said dates are related to:
- Funding of phase II of the UIDAI scheme
- Approval of funding of phase-III of the UIDAI
- Aadhar enrolment beyond 20 crores
- Setting up of the National Skill Development Agency(NSDA)
- Approval to proposal for reallocation of states for Aadhar enrolment The above mentioned information sought by the applicant is not available with Administration Section, NITI Aayog. However, if applicant wishes to see any specific information/documents personally, she is requested to indicate her convenience to visit during office hours and if required, take copies of such specific information/document.
3. The information sought does not pertain to Administration Section II.
Accordingly, the RTI application is transferred to the concerned section of NITI Aayog/UIDAI and MeITY under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this connection NIL, information have been received by the CPIO(s) concerned."
The CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) vide letter dated 17.08.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1 to 3:-Please refer the first appeal reply dated 11.05.2022. The FAA clearly mentioned that UIDAI is not the custodian of any Cabinet Committee documents. Hence, no such information is available with UIDAI."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2022 on the following grounds:
A) Information already contained in a request u/s 6 cannot possibly be provided by CPIO u/s 7 to the requester.
B) The information of your order that that CPIO has claimed to provide to me on 17/08/22 is information with which UIDAI should have promptly returned the faulty transfer to NITI Aayog.
C) The online Reply saying INFORMATION PROVIDED that CPIO has entered into RTI Online MIS is FALSE and will contribute towards FALSIFICATION of RTI statistics in the statutory Annual Reports of the CIC and, consequently, to the MISLEADING of public and Parliament. ... your order dated 11/05/22 was in the matter ... that CPIO similarly disposed of with online Reply claiming INFORMATION PROVIDED and a letter informing that the information sought is not clear to him etc. The FAA, UIDAI vide order dated 12.09.2022 held as under:-
"2. After careful consideration and review of your RTI application along with the response dated 16.08.2022 of CPIO, first appellate authority is in the view that the response dated 16.08.2022 of CPIO is in order and it is already informed to you that UIDAI is not the custodian of Cabinet Note.
3. In view of the above the appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby disposed off."Page 2 of 5
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 27.02.2025 has been received from the Complainant wherein she has narrated the background of her query as under:
"My Complaint arose from a request to Cabinet Secretariat that was transferred on 01.07.22 to NITI Aayog and re-transferred by NITI-Aayog to UIDAI. I had sought, inter alia, file numbers of files related to the erstwhile Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related issues (CC-UIDAI). Further facts are as follows:
a. NITI Aayog had also kept the transfer dt. 01.07.22 for 15 disposals. My 2nd Appeal No. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648146 seeking reason u/s 4(1)(d) for the transfer to UIDAI was disposed of By Order dt. 11.08.23 on 8 cases. NITI Aayog's letter dt. 09.10.23 thereafter, along with the Order and my 2nd Appeal, is added as Link Paper D. No. 609321 dt. 22.02.25. Reason/ justification u/s 6(3) for NITI Aayog's transfer to UIDAI is even now not known to me.
b. To my mind, UIDAI cannot be holding CC-UIDAI files because it is only an attached office and not a Ministry / Department. Order dt. 01.05.22 in F. No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131 (2nd Appeal, arisen from MEITY's transfer to UIDAI, mentioned at the start of my Complaint) did not allow my prayer for direction to UIDAI to provide file numbers etc of letters by which CC-UIDAI decisions were conveyed to UIDAI. I then made a request u/s 6(1) to UIDAI for information of (1) its officers for rules 3 & 7 of the Public Records Rules, (2) its file management system till 2014, and (3) copies of letters by which Cabinet decisions were conveyed to it...
3. My Complaint is against nil disposal of a transfer-receipt. In 1st appeal I had contended that the receipt should have been returned. My 1st appeal and FAA's order are part of my Complaint. I request the Commission to convert my Complaint to 2nd Appeal for recommendation to UIDAI to, instead of making nil disposals u/s 7, return the transfers made to it for CC-UIDAI information that it does not hold.
The NITI Ayog has sent a submission dated 28.02.2025 reiterating the replies dated 15.07.2022 and 18.07.2022 and the transfer of the RTI to (i) CPIO, State Finance & Co-ordination, NITI Aayog (ii) CPIO, Science & Technology, NITI Aayog (iii| UIIDAI (iv) MEITY for providing information to the applicant on the relevant points raised in the application. A copy of the submission has been duly marked to the Complainant.
The PIO, UIDAI has also submitted a written submission dated 03.03.2025 reiterating the aforementioned facts and also citing past decisions of the Commission on similar subject matter. The Respondent public authority, viz. UIDAI has also placed reliance on the decision dated 11.08.2023, mentioned in the Complainant's written submission hereinabove, whereby 8 second appeals filed by the same Applicant before NITI Ayog seeking the same set of information Page 3 of 5 had been decided by the Commission, dispensing UIDAI with the following observation:
"..The Commission at the very outset dispenses with Respondent(s) 2 & 3 in the matter after taking into consideration their written submissions as also the Appellant's no objection to them being dispensed with as Respondent(s)......"
The PIO, UIDAI has concluded his contentions in the following manner:
"...15. It is humbly submitted that the information sought by the appellant through multiple RTI applications is broadly related to Cabinet Secretariat records relating to CC-UIDAI. The CPIO FAA has clearly given the reply that UIDAI is not the custodian of any Cabinet Committee documents. Hence, no information is available with UIDAI.
.....................
17. In view of the above, it is clear that the applicant is seeking information through multiple RTI applications on the subject Cabinet Secretariat records related to CC-UIDAI through queries in different formats. However, no such information is available with UIDAI and it has been informed to the appellant by CPIO/FAA, UIDAI. Therefore, it is clear that the CPIO/FAA have adequately responded to the queries of the applicant/ appellant in all the cases in a time bound manner though the queries were identical in nature..."
The written submission is detailed and self explanatory as such and has been duly marked to the Complainant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present with Shri Sarbajit Roy Respondent: Shri Biswajeet Mandhata Patnaik - US/CPIO, NITI Ayog; Shri Neeraj Sachdeva - Director/CPIO, UIDAI and Shri Sunil Kumar - Dy. Director, UIDAI were present during hearing.
All the contesting parties were heard at length and they reiterated their respective contentions as submitted and duly noted in the records hereinabove.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the parties it is noted that the PIO, UIDAI responded in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act clearly stating that no such information is available with UIDAI. Thus the response sent by the Respondent PIO, UIDAI is legally appropriate and requires no further intervention. However, taking note of the Complainant's contention in her written submission, the Commission recommends that the public authority - UIDAI should consider returning the transfers made to it for CC-UIDAI information that it does not hold.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, it is pertinent to adjudicate whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that Page 4 of 5 the Respondent had sent appropriate response based on records available with them and no deliberate or wilful denial of information on the part of the Respondent is not found in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.."
Applying the aforementioned dicta to the facts of the case at hand, the Commission is of the opinion that response provided by the Respondent in this case is factually and legally appropriate and no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)