Central Information Commission
Mrnitin Verma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 May, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000950SA
(Sh. Nitin Verma Vs. Home Deptt. GNCTD)
Appellant : Shri Nitin Verma
Respondent : Home Deptt. , GNCTD, Delhi
Date of hearing : 30052014
Date of decision : 30052014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the
RTI Act
Result : Appeal allowed / disposed of
The appellant is absent. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Anil Agrawal,
Superintendent and Mr. Subhash Ranjan, Superintendent, Home Department, GNCTD,
Delhi.
FACTS
2. The appellant Nitin Verma, a convict sought information under Right to Information Act, from Home Department to know whether convict would ordinarily be not granted parole if there is more than one murder in one FIR against the convict (one case multiple murders) or there is more than one FIR in different murder cases (more than 1 one case of single murders). The PIO replied well in time that the information sought is not 'information' under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Before the First Appellate Authority, the public authority provided the copy of guidelines called ' Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010' which were issued with the approval of Hon'ble LG vide order No. R. 18/912009/HG/765 dated 17th February, 2010. Para 12 of these Guidelines detail the categories of prisoners/convicts who would not be eligible for being released on parole. Para 12.5 says: in the following cases, parole would ordinarily be not granted except, if in the discretion of the competent authority special circumstances exist for grant of parole. (a) if the prisoner is convicted for murder after rape, (b) if the prisoner is convicted for murder and rape of children; and (c) If prisoner is convicted for multiple murders.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal stating that seeking clarification or interpretation of above clause of the guidelines will not fall under the definition of 'information'. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 28.2.2013 stated: "The RTI Act, 2005 does not provide for grant of an opportunity of hearing to the appellant".
4. The Commission hereby clarifies that appellant's right of hearing in first and second appeal is inherent in his right of appeal as provided under section 19. He should be given a chance of hearing by sending a notice of hearing. If he chooses not to present, the appellate authority has a duty to go forward with hearing and act according to the RTI Act based on the material before him. In this case the Appellate Authority mentioned that he was always according personal hearing but he could not do so because the appellant was a convict and lodged in Central Jail no. 1 Tihar as a convict. The Appellate authority stated that he decided based on the records available. Being felt aggrieved that required information was denied to him, the appellant filed second appeal before this Commission.
2
5. Though contention of the respondent was that applicants query did not fall under definition of 'information', they have furnished the copy of 'Parole/Furlough Guidelines 2010' consisting of 38 guidelines spread over 14 pages. As there was no definition or explanation available in the guidelines for the word 'multiple murder' the appellant came in second appeal.
Decision:
6. During hearing the representatives of Home Department submitted that they have no authority to interpret the clauses of law, granting of parole was discretionary power of the competent authority and such 'information' sought was not held by them. When asked where the common man like appellant should get clarification about his right to parole as per the laws and guidelines, the respondent authority stated that the administrative department have sought the legal opinion about meaning of 'multiple murder'. The opinion given by Mr. Manmeet Singh Walia, the Assistant Legal Advisor dated 1.7.2013 clarified that word 'multiple murders' literally means that 'murder of more than one person'. The same also was applied in several judicial decisions including one in Anbarasu v DSP Nagarcoil [MANU/TN/4768/2011].
7. The Commission directs the Home Department to furnish the copy of the legal opinion they secured on the question of clarification about what is 'multiple murder'?. Accordingly the Home Department furnished copy of legal opinion to the Commission and agreed to furnish a copy to the convict/appellant.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
3
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Ashwani K. Sharma) Designated Officer Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, GNCTD Home(General) Department, 5th Level C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate NEW DELHI-110002
2. Shri Nitin Verma S/o Late Shri Vinod Verma, Presently Confined at Central Jail No.01, Tihar New Delhi 4 5