Central Information Commission
Mr.Ravi Shanker Prasad Verma vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 8 November, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000285
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8 November 2012
Date of decision : 8 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad Verma,
A/17, Raw House, Chandresh Housing
Society, Lodha Heaven, Kalyan Shill
Road, Niljale, Dombivali (East),
Thane - 421 204.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs,
Capital Markets Division, Regulatory
Establishments Section, North Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Amit Bansal, US & CPIO, was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up in the Thane studio of the NIC in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard his submissions.
3. In respect of a particular notification of the Government of India for appointment of two whole time members of the SEBI, the Appellant had raised a large number of queries seeking a variety of information which included the copies of several records relating to the selection process. The CPIO had informed him that the desired information could not be disclosed since the selection process was on. He had cited the exemption provision contained in CIC/SM/A/2012/000285 subsection 1(i) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his decision. The Appellate Authority had, however, in speaking order, directed the CPIO to disclose the desired information. However, it appears, the information was still not disclosed, except recently, when all the information was presumably sent to him. The Respondent submitted that the desired information had not been disclosed in spite of the order of the Appellate Authority because the public authority was of the view that since the vigilance clearance in respect of some candidate was still under consideration of the competent authorities, the disclosure of the information might adversely affect that process.
4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. While the decision of the CPIO initially not to disclose the information might have some basis in view of the fact that the selection process was on and the records of the selection constituted Cabinet papers, there was no case for not disclosing the information once the Appellate Authority so directed. It must be clearly understood that wherever the public authority is of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be implemented, the only course open is to challenge the order before the CIC. We wish the public authority had done this instead of deciding not to implement the order of the Appellate Authority.
5. All open selections made by the government for various public offices need to be transparent and objective. One of the ways of ensuring such transparency and objectivity is to place all the relevant records in the public domain as soon as the selection process is complete. Instead of waiting for somebody to seek the information on the RTI, it would be prudent for the public authority concerned to upload the details of the selection process in the public domain.
6. In the present case, in view of the claim of the Respondent that the CIC/SM/A/2012/000285 entire information has since been provided to the Appellant, we do not intend to give any other direction.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000285