Central Information Commission
Sv Deshpande vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 9 March, 2022
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/DPOOL/A/2020/670155
CIC/DPOOL/A/2020/671548
CIC/DPOOL/A/2021/635683
CIC/DHOME/A/2021/658534
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/639354
Shri S V Deshpande ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Department of Official Language
2. Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 08.03.2022
Date of Decision : 09.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on appeal dated/Received
on
670155 22.10.2019 05.12.2019 16.01.2020 14.02.2020 10.05.2020
671548 17.01.2020 14.02.2020 29.02.2020 05.03.2020 23.05.2020
635683 15.04.2021 - 15.06.2021 - 09.08.2021
658534 30.08.2021 - 24.10.2021 - 06.12.2021
639354 04.04.2021 27.05.2021 18.06.2021 - 26.08.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DPOOL/A/2020/670155 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.10.2019 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Please inform me, in the light of official language act-1963 clause 8(2); if this whole Official language Rules-1976 including all its amendments from time to time, were/are ratified by the Parliament as per the statutory provisions given in official language act-1963-8(2); Or NOT.
2. Please inform me, if the written consent of the legislatures (i.e. Successive Governments their) of all three states, namely-Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab were taken, prior to classification of these states in Region 'B'- official language rules-1976-2(g); Or NOT.
3. Please inform me, if the residents of all three states, namely-Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab were asked to submit their willingness in written or by any other democratic channel, either by the way of public referendum or Page 1 of 8 any other democratic way, prior to c classify lassify these states in Region 'B' - official language rules-1976-2(g);2(g); Or NOT.
4. Please inform me, if the written consent of the legislatures (i.e. Successive Governments their) of all states, mentioned in Region 'C' were taken, prior to classification of these states in Region 'C' 'C'- official language rules-1976-2(h);
rules Or
NOT.
5. Please inform me, if the residents of all the states in Region 'C' were asked to submit their willingness in written or by any other democratic channel; either by the way of public referendum rendum or any other democratic way, prior to classify these states in Region 'C'-- official language rules-1976-2(h); 2(h); Or NOT.
6. Please inform me, the administrative reasons for grouping all states in Region 'A','B', and 'C'; in the light of RTI act section 3 and section 4 (c) & (d).
7. Please inform me, the administrative reasons for keeping three states, namely Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab in Region 'B' 'B'- official language rules-1976-
rules 2(g); in the light of RTI act act-section 3 and section 4 ( c) & (d).
8. Please informrm me, the administrative reasons for keeping all states, (barring states in Region A and B); in Region 'C' of the official language rules-1976-2(h);
rules in the light of RTI act-section section 3 and section 4 (c) & (d).
9. Please inform me, the reasons behind the violat violation ion of *Equality Principle* mentioned in the article 14 of constitution; if this classification is done under the statutory power conferred by the section8(1) of the official language act 1963; in the light of RTI actact-section 3 and 4 (c) & (d).
epartment of Official Language, vide letter dated 05.12.2019 replied as The PIO, Department under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2020. The FAA, Department of Official Language, videv order dated 14.02.2020 held d as under:
under:-Page 2 of 8
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission Commissio with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Director (Policy/ Training), D/o Official Language, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 11.02.2022 wherein a revised point wise reply on the RTI queries was provided.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He denied the receipt of the written submission from the Respondent and stated that the information provided was not satisfactory.
The Respondent represented by Smt Niharika Singh, Director (P/T), D/o Official Language participated in the hearing through audio conference. She stated that information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant and that the factual position was reaffirmed in their written submiss submission.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. As per the provisions ons of the Act, the CPIO is only required to provide such information that is held and available with the public authority and is not required to provide clarifications/ explanations/ interpretations to the information seeker. Hence, no further interventionn of the Commission is required in the instant matter. Smt Niharika Singh, Director (P/T), D/o Official Language is however directed to forward another copy of her written submission to the Appellant for her perusal and necessary action. For redressal of h his is grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/DPOOL/A/2020/671548 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.01.2020 seeking information on the following points:
points:-
1. Please give me PDF or scan copies of the relevant yearly documents i.e. four documents for the years 1976, 1987, 2007 and 2011; which could/may establish the documented occurrence of the ratification of Offici Official al language rules-1976 1976 by the Parliament in 1976, 1987, 2007 and 2011 or afterwards.
2. Please give me reasons for unavailability of the above mentioned documents in the light of RTI act - sec 3 and sec 4 (c) and (d).
The PIO, Department of Officia Official Language, vide letter dated 14.02.2020 replied as under:-
Page 3 of 8Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.02.2020.
.2020. The FAA, Department of Offici Official al Language, vide order dated 05.03.2020 .2020 stated as under:
under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission Commissio with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Director (Policy/ Training), D/o Official Language, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 11.02.2022 wherein a revised point wise reply on the RTI queries was provided.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant and Smt Niharika Singh, Director (P/T), D/o Official Language participated in the hearing through audio conference. The Appellant expressed her satisfaction with the information provided by the Respondent vide her written submission and stated thatt he does not wish to press this matter any further.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as "withdrawn".
(3) CIC/DPOOL/A/2021/635683 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 15.04.2021 seeking information on the following points:
points:-
1. Please inform me, in the light of official language act act-1963 1963 clause 8(2); if this whole Official language Rules Rules-1976 including all its amendments from time to time, were/are ratified by the Parliament as per the statutory provisions given in official language act-1963 1963-8(2); Or NOT
2. Please inform me regarding the official language rulesrules-1976 1976 with respect to legal hierarchy i.e. they belong to rules framed under the Parliamentary statute enacted by due procedure of debates & successive voting; OR framed under the Executive orders of the Government.
3. Please inform me, by providing supportive documents, if the written consent of the legislatures latures (i.e. Successive Governments there in) of all states covered under Region A, B and C; were taken, prior to classification of these states in three regions namely A, B & C, as per the official language rules1976; Or NOT.
4. Please inform me, by providi providing ng supportive documents, if the resident citizens of all states in regions A, B & C, were asked to submit their willingness in written form or by any other democratic channel like; by the way of public referendum, report of committee or commission appointeappointedd by the union of Page 4 of 8 India or any other democratic way, prior to classification these states in Regions in A, B & C, as per the official language rules-1976; Or NOT.
5. Please inform me, by providing supportive documents, the administrative reasons for classification of all states in Regions A, B & C; in the light of RTI act- section 3 and section 4 (c) & (d).
6. Please inform me, the administrative reasons for keeping three states, namely-
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab in Region 'B'-official language rules1976; in the light of RTI act-section 3 and section 4 ( c) & (d). ETC.
Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Director (Policy/ Training), D/o Official Language, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 02.03.2022 wherein a point wise reply on the RTI queries was provided.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that points 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 17 of the RTI application were not satisfactorily answered. He referred to his written submissions dated 05.02.2022 and 07.02.2022 and stated that information regarding ratification of Official Language Rules, 1976 should be provided. Similarly, information on whether the Official Language Rules, 1976 were framed by the Parliament or framed under an Executive Order should also be disclosed. Regarding points 6, 7 and 17 he stated that a clear and cogent reply regarding the reasons for classification of all states in Group A, B and C and the willingness of citizens for such classification was not provided. In reference to point nos 8 and 9, the written consent/ written requests by each state for their classification in Group A, B or C as per the Official Language Rules was also not provided.
The Respondent represented by Smt Niharika Singh, Director (P/T), D/o Official Language participated in the hearing through audio conference. With regard to point no 1 she stated that status of ratification of the Official Language Rules, 1976 was provided to the Appellant. However, the parliamentary debates on the same are not available with them. Regarding point no 2 she stated that Section 8 (2) of the Official Language Act, 1963 clearly lays down the rule making power under the Act and no further explanation/ clarification/ interpretation can be provided under the RTI Act, 2005. Similarly, regarding points 6, 7, 8 and 17 she stated that the Official Language Rules, 1976 do not specify the clarification requested by the Appellant in the aforementioned points hence no further details can be provided as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the Page 5 of 8 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(4) CIC/DHOME/A/2021/658534 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 30.08.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Please give me a scan or PDF copy/copies of the resolution letter/letters sent by the chief minister of AP Kiran Reddy then, to GoM in Delhi; wherein the AP assembly & council rejected the AP bifurcation bill-2013 on 30 Jan 2014 and the said letter/letters was received by the GoM on 3 Feb 2014; if ANY.{ please read attached doc}.
Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the US, CSR-III, CS Division, M/o Home Affairs vide letter dated 04.03.2022 wherein it was stated that the information sought for is not available with the CPIO which was conveyed to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.12.2021.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the document requested in the RTI application is a public document sent by the Government of AP to the Central Government hence should be disclosed as per the RTI Act, 2005. He also made a reference to an extract of the book titled "Old History New Geography- Bifurcating Andhra Pradesh" by Shri Jairam Ramesh wherein a reference was made to the resolution dated 30.01.2014 by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council approving the rejection of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 by voice note. Thus, he argued that the information ought to exist in the record of the authority.
The Respondent represented by Smt Lalita Hedawo, CPIO and US, CS Division, M/o Home Affairs participated in the hearing through audio conference. She reiterated her written submission dated 04.03.2022 and stated that the information sought is not available with the public authority. On being queried by the Commission if the first appeal has been decided till date, Smt Hedawo feigned ignorance.
Page 6 of 8Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the aspect pertaining to the reference made by the Appellant to the extract of the book titled "Old History New Geography- Bifurcating Andhra Pradesh" by Shri Jairam Ramesh in support of his claim regarding existence of information has not been examined by the public authority. The first appeal has also not been decided as per the available records. The Commission therefore remands the matter to Shri Ashish Kumar, FAA and JS (CS Division), M/o Home Affairs to examine the first appeal and pronounce a reasoned/ speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant by 15.04.2021 under intimation to the Commission. The registry of this bench is directed to forward a copy of the Second Appeal with all annexed documents to Shri Ashish Kumar, FAA and JS (CS Division), M/o Home Affairs to ensure compliance with the above mentioned direction.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposd off accordingly.
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/639354 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated04.04.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Please inform me if some or all states of the Indian union are formed on the linguistic basis, or NOT.
2. Please inform me about constitutional provisions for the creation of Indian states on the linguistic basis from time being, if ANY.
3. Please inform me about *OBJECTS AND REASONS*for the creation of various linguistic states from time being, if ANY
4. Please inform me about the criteria fixed by the constitution for the creation of the linguistic state, if ANY.
5. Please inform me about the criteria fixed by the Indian Parliament for the creation of the linguistic state, if ANY.
6. Please inform me the names of various linguistic states within the Union of India, if ANY.
7. Please give me reasons for the non-compliance w.r.t. revealing desired information, under the sec 3 and sec- 4(c) & (d); if ANY.
The PIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter dated 27.05.2021 replied as under:-
Page 7 of 8Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2021 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He referred to the reply of the CPIO dated 27.05.2021 and stated that a satisfactory point wise reply has not been received by him till date. He specifically referred to point no 1 of the RTI application and stated that clear and cogent information regarding constitution of states on linguistic basis was no provided, till date.
The Respondent represented by Smt Lalita Hedawo, CPIO and US (CS Division), M/o Home Affairs participated in the hearing through audio conference. She referred to her written submission dated 04.03.2022 wherein it was stated that a reply dated 27.05.2021 was provided to the Appellant. The first appeal was also disposed off vide order dated 09.10.2021 reiterating the stand of the CPIO.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the RTI queries have not been suitably replied to. The Commission directs Smt. Lalita Hedawo, CPIO and US (CS Division), M/o Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response particularly to point no. 1 to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 15.04.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 of 8