Central Information Commission
Prem Singh Sahrawat vs Indian Nursing Council on 25 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/INURC/A/2017/175330-BJ
Mr. Prem Singh Sahrawat
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Secretary, Indian Nursing Council
8th Floor, NBCC Centre,
Plot No 02, Community Centre
Okhla Phase I, New Delhi - 110020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2019
Date of Decision : 25.03.2019
Date of RTI application 31.05.2017
CPIO's response 07.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 01.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 03.10.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the date from which the registration in ANM in Delhi Nursing Council was banned by INC along with the reasons to impose ban on registration; authority who is responsible for destroying the future of those student who have completed two years of ANM; name, designation of the official who have banned the registration in ANM in Delhi Nursing Council, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 07.07.2017 informed that the matter relating to registration of ANM would be placed in the next Nursing Education Committee of the Council and the decision of the same would be intimated to him accordingly. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.10.2017 informed that the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 27.07.2017 has decided that the candidates who Page 1 of 4 have completed their ANM Course from any other State can register in that State under Reciprocal Registration.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Prem Singh Sahrawat;
Respondent: Ms. K. S. Bharati, Joint Secretary, INC and Mr. L. Viswanathan, Sr. Consultant;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the point-wise response was not provided to him. It was further alleged that the CPIO had only provided a consolidated reply instead of point-wise clear and cogent response. In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, relied upon the written submission sent to the Commission. However, it was informed that the Indian Nursing Council is an Autonomous Body under the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and its primary function is to maintain uniform standards and regulation of Nursing Education all over the Country i.e. Policy Guidelines regarding the Minimum Standards/Syllabus and Curricula for various nursing courses. Moreover, the day to day issues regarding implementation and registration of qualified nurses is a matter pertaining to the concerned State Nursing Council constituted under the State Act.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 22.03.2019 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA dated 07.07.2017/03.10.2017, it was submitted that the INC is an Autonomous Body under the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, constituted under the INC Act, 1947, enacted by the Parliament. The objective of the Council is to maintain uniform standards and regulation of Nursing Education all over the Country i.e. Policy Guidelines regarding the Minimum Standards/Syllabus and Curricula for various nursing courses are laid down by INC. However the day to day issues regarding implementation and registration of qualified nurses is a matter pertaining to the concerned State Nursing Council constituted under an Act of the State concerned. Furthermore, the Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery course (ANM) is a nursing programme designed to meet essentially the local requirements of nurses within the State and the medium of instruction in this programme is accordingly the local language. As such, as per the earlier policy of the Council (Circular dated 25.06.2015) a candidate from a State can take admission for ANM course in that State only. Accordingly ANM qualified candidate of a State cannot register in another State with a different official language. However, the above admission policy for ANM program was quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Order Dated 04.07.2016 in CWP 23156/2015). Considering the Court decision in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Council held on 27.07.2017, it was decided to do away with the restriction regarding registration of an ANM qualified candidate. As such ANM qualified candidates from any State can now register in any other State under the provisions of Reciprocal Registration. This has been intimated to the Applicant also. Moreover, questioning the policy of the Registration of ANM qualified Nurses or asking reasons for change of the same is beyond the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first Page 2 of 4 appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Page 3 of 4Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide a point-wise response to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order as also to forward a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 25.03.2019
Page 4 of 4