Central Information Commission
Rajeev Girdhar vs National Crime Record Bureau on 20 December, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NCREB/A/2019/128934
Shri Rajeev Girdhar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Dy. Director (CCTNS), NCRB, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Through: Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey-CPIO/Chief
Statistician
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2021
Date of Decision : 20.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.04.2019
PIO replied on : 06.05.2019
First Appeal filed on : 11.05.2019
First Appellate Order on : 27.05.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.06.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2019 seeking information on 41 points, some of which include the following:-Page 1 of 7
Etc. The CPIO/Dy. Director (CCTNS) vide letter dated 06.05.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2019. The FAA/IG/Jt. Director vide order dated 27.05.2019 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 26.11.2021, wherein detailed arguments have been placed forth by the Appellant and duly taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and submitted their respective contentions.
Page 2 of 7Appellant places reliance on a host of decisions mentioned in his written submissions, particularly the decisions in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain [(1975)4SCC428]; Mr. Tarlochan Singh Versus CPIO and Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127442-BJ] and R.S. Mishra v. Supreme Court of India (CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351) to corroborate his contentions about the importance of the right to information and that denial on the part of the Respondent was wrongful and violative of the RTI Act. Likewise it was contended by the Appellant that not transferring of RTI application to the relevant custodian of information violated provisions of the Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
On the other hand, the Respondent present during hearing stated that data sought by the Appellant about persons who have confessed their crime, is not readily available with the Respondent or even with the State authorities. He clarified that first of all the information is not maintained centrally at one place and State agencies maintain their own set of data. Secondly, the data maintained by the Respondent- NCRB is also not maintained in the format as sought by the Appellant and would require collation and compilation of such humungous data which would adversely impact the regular functioning of the public authority.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the detailed submissions of the parties, the Commission notes that the decisions cited by the Appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case at hand, because in none of the cases have such voluminous and abstract information been sought by the Appellant, as have been sought in this case. The RTI Act as a welfare legislation mandates disclosure of information for the purpose of transparency in functioning of the public authority. The Act ought not to be misunderstood as a search engine to be exploited for the purpose of data mining for research purposes. An attempt at conducting any research or creating any data bank should not be done at the cost of time and effort of public authorities, by diverting them from the original tasks assigned to them.
It is pertinent to note that on several occasions, the Courts have expressed their views on such abuse of the process of law, some of which are discussed herein below:
I. In Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946), the Apex Court observed that "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
II. The Apex Court has been mindful of how wasteful litigation drains the judicial system of its precious time which could be utilized to dispose off cases and address issues faced by genuine litigants(information seekers). The views of the Hon'ble Court have been discussed in great details in the case of Ashok Page 3 of 7 Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), wherein Justice Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
III. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dismissing the writ petition in the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] observed that: "........... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
IV. The Apex Court in two vital decisions has particularly discussed about the RTI Act in the following words:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a Page 4 of 7 public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well informed democracy is transparency.
However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
Emphasis supplied V. In the other celebrated judgment, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court discussed the meaning of information as defined under the RTI Act, in the following words:
31. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide `information' into the three categories. They are:
(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption (enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
(ii) Other information held by public authority (that is all information other than those falling under clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.
Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of RTI Act. Section 3 of RTI Act gives every citizen, the right to `information' held by or under the control of a public authority, which falls either under the first or second category.
34. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise Page 5 of 7 and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act that is section 8 of Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The Courts and Information Commissions enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting section 8 and the other provisions of the Act.
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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which 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.
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability............................. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Page 6 of 7Thus to conclude, it can be deduced that the RTI Act seeks to bring about a balance between the two conflicting interests viz. transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities while also ensuring that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests.
In the light of the above discussion, the Commission is of the considered opinion that considering the nature of the 41 queries raised by the Appellant, the response sent by the Respondent is appropriate and requires no intervention, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7