Central Information Commission
Indranil Bhattacharya vs Film And Television Institute, Pune on 30 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/FATIP/A/2022/158775
Indranil Bhattacharya ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Film and Television Institute of
India, RTI Cell, Law College Road,
Pune - 411004, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/05/2023
Date of Decision : 30/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 24/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 21/10/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/12/2022
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Approved minutes of all Governing Council Meetings of Film and Television Institute of India, held between January 1, 2019 and August 17, 2022, be furnished to the applicant.
2. The total number of Governing Council Meetings at FTII, along with dates, between the period January 1, 2019, and August 17, 2022, may be furnished."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 28.03.2022 stating as under:
"Point No.1 As per section 4(1)(b)(viii) of RTI Act, 2005 and Paragraph 4.6 of FTII RTI Manual, the minutes of Boards, Councils, Committees and Other Bodies consisting of two or more persons cannot be shared with public.
Point No.2 Total 09 Governing Council meetings held at FTII between the period January 01, 2019 and August 17, 2022. The dates of 09 meetings are as follows 19.02.2019, 18.06.2019, 10.12.2019, 27.12.2019, 25.02.2020, 30.01.2021, 23.04.2021, 23.11.2021 and 25.06.2022."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2022. FAA's order dated 21.10.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Sayyid Rabeehashmi, Registrar and S K Dekate, Administrative Officer & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Appellant were taken on record stating as under:
"2. Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act states as follows: "...the Central Public Information Officer ... on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, ... either provide the information ... or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 ..." In other words, information can be rejected invoking Sections 2 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. It also provides certain discretionary but not absolute exemptions under Section 24. In some of these cases, the exemption of interpretation of information lies with the CIC. However, in the present case, the CPIO and FAA have sought exemption under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This is erroneous and misleading. The first and second appeal has clearly explained this issue and put on record relevant past orders from the CIC and case laws pertaining to the same.
3. The appellant humbly submits that the recent Written Submission dated 25.05.2023 by the FAA is misleading and reiterates the same flawed logic and exemption claimed by the CPIO in his order dated 24.08.2022. In addition, the FAA has taken recourse to 4.6 of the Manual of Film and Television Institute of India and has claimed that the Minutes and Statements of boards, councils, committees, and other bodies consisting of two or more persons" are not relevant to the public. In other words, the FAA claims that this clause in the manual could be used to decline the Minutes and Statements sought under Sections 6 and 7 of the RTI Act.
Ref Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January 2011 'The Commission observed that Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act confers power on a public authority to determine whether minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees, and other bodies are open or accessible to the public and publish the same. This power of the public authority to determine whether minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees, and other bodies shall be open or accessible to the public is solely for the purposes of suo moto disclosures by the public authority, as mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act.'
4. The present CPIO had allowed a similar request for Minutes of Governing Council meeting and had allowed 100 pages of information to this applicant. But the CPIO took a 180-degree turn and denied the same information citing Section 4 of the Act.
5. FTII is a public-funded body in the field of media education. Its policies have national ramifications on present and future students, academics, and policymakers. Blanket secrecy as claimed under 4.6 of FTII's RTI Manual militates against the basic tenets and goal of the RTI Act. It is not pro-transparency, but pro-secrecy. The decisions taken in the Meeting of Boards, Councils, etc are fundamental to the policymaking at FTII and affect the stakeholders and the 3 public at large and hence could not be kept outside the purview of the RTI Act. To claim such information is not relevant to the public is both incorrect and vexatious.
6. This appellant asserts that clause 4.6 used to decline the Minutes is a complete violation of the Right to Information Act. This clause introduced in the Manual falls foul of the Act itself and should be struck down. Moreover, Section 4(viii) of the RTI Act cannot be used to deny information sought under Section 6 of the RTI Act. Moreover, this manual was created long after the mandatory period of 180 days given to Public Authorities to formulate such a Manual and hence this Manual ought to be quashed.
7. In an important decision Information Commissioner Vanaja Sarna (Love Gogia vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 29 May 2020) has made the following observations regarding the role of FAA and I quote:
The Commission also notes that the manner of dismissal of the first appeal by the FAA without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing after the complainant has specifically asked for a hearing goes against the principles of natural justice. The FAA in this case without hearing the complainant concluded that the case needs to be dismissed which reflects unreasonable handling of the first appeal, driving the complainant to file this complaint. The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of the merits of each case.
The FAA is also flawed in its action of issuing non-speaking orders and this should be noted by the Hon'ble Commission.
8. This appellant, further, requests the Hon'ble Commission to deter the CPIO or FAA to introduce a new reason or a fresh exemption category to justify the denial of information at the stage of Hearing. This practice has been followed by the same CPIO on previous occasions. This is against the law and the RTI Act, as it will enable CPIO to reject information on different grounds at different stages of the process at their convenience.
9. It is prayed that the Commission takes cognizance of the above facts and directs the CPIO to supply all denied information to the appellant. Moreover, in view of the loss incurred by the appellant as the Minutes were required to be produced before the High Court in WP 8577 of 2019."4
Sayyid Rabeehashmi, Registrar invited the attention of the bench to the written submissions filed by the FAA on 25.05.2023 stating as under:
"...a reply to the original application under IITI dated 77.08.2022 from Shri Indranil Bhattacharya was already replied by the PIO vide FTII letter No. F- 230741712022-F.st. dated 24.08.2022 citing the relevant provision of the RTI Act, 2005 and also paragraph 4.6 of Manual of the FTII (As per Chapter-Il, Para (4) (b) of the RTI Act 2005), which is already available on the Institute's website stating that the minutes of the various meetings held by the Governing Council of F'TII are not relevant to the public, as the meetings organized by the FTII Society is for the purpose of day-to-day supervision/advise for smooth functioning of the Institute..."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that while the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application seeking copy of "all meeting minutes" is as inherently defective vis-à-vis Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as was already pointed to the Appellant with respect to an earlier Appeal of his decided vide File No. CIC/FTIP/A/2021/628067 on 17.08.2022 (incidentally the same date as that of the instant RTI Application) seeking similar information about minutes of Board meetings. Following is the relevant portion of the earlier decision:
"The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that concededly the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application is not in strict consonance with Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as no specific record of meeting has been sought for rather copy of all meeting minutes on administrative issues has been sought for while insisting that the only specific is the attendance of the averred officials during whatever period they served the posts. In other words, to facilitate the Appellant, the CPIO was required to deduce and interpret the records of all meetings to be able to provide the information. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
'2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, 5 orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;..' In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
'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.........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.' (Emphasis Supplied) Further, the contention of the Appellant that the CPIO inappropriately called out relevancy of the meeting minutes to the Appellant is although considered but given the nature of the information sought for as observed above, the Commission finds that considering the provision of Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act which allows the public authority to state as a part of suo motu disclosure whether minutes of the meetings are accessible for public, by liberal interpretation the CPIO's reply cannot be deemed as unwarranted.
xxx Similarly, as for the contention of the Appellant that no exemption was invoked for the said denial, the Commission reiterates the above observation that the CPIO's reply cannot be called into question given the unspecific nature of the information sought for in the RTI Application."
However, the only distinguishing factor in the instant case is the fact that at point no.2 of the RTI Application, the CPIO's reply informs of 9 such meetings that were held over the course of around 3.5 years (i.e Jan, 2019 to Aug, 2022) which suffices the requirement of specifics lacking at point no.1 of the RTI Application.6
Nonetheless, the fact remains that requiring the CPIO to analyze and determine the applicability of Section 8 exemptions to the record of meeting minutes of these 9 meetings may entail interpretation & deduction of records by the CPIO. For the reasons mentioned as above, the reply of the CPIO is not being adversely called into question, however, for future, the CPIO & FAA shall bear in mind that the stipulations of suo motu mandate under Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act cannot be quoted as a reply to a RTI Application as has been rightly pointed out in the CIC order referred to by the Appellant in his written submissions in the matter of Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India stating as under:
'The Commission observed that Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act confers power on a public authority to determine whether minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees, and other bodies are open or accessible to the public and publish the same. This power of the public authority to determine whether minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees, and other bodies shall be open or accessible to the public is solely for the purposes of suo moto disclosures by the public authority, as mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act.' Similarly, the FAA shall note that the "relevance" of meeting minutes to the public is not a matter for determination when a citizen seeks information by way of an RTI Application and such determination is an extraneous consideration for the CPIO & FAA. In other words, the disclosure of the information sought for in a RTI Application is only subject to the exemptions of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act.
Keeping the above in mind, the Commission is constrained to go with the reply of the CPIO with the observation that the information sought by the Appellant on point no. 1 of the RTI application is indeterminate and also appears to be voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which would entail diversion of manpower resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."7
It also appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. xxxxx 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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
Hence, no further intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8