Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Tapati Basu vs Department Of Home on 6 May, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                   के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DHOME/A/2023/602703

Smt. Tapati Basu                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Department of Home                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :   02.05.2024
Date of Decision                        :   02.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          19.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :              - -
First Appeal filed on             :          28.10.2022
First Appellate Order on          :              - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :          Nil

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"1. To the best of my knowledge, (i) The POCSO Act, 2012 is gender neutral. Means the act recognizes Female Sex Predators preying on Male juveniles.

(ii) The Campus sexual harassment policy has been made gender Neutral by the University Grant Commission. (iii) Two PILs were filed in the Supreme Court and One in Delhi High Court with very strong demands for Gender Neutral criminal laws dealing with sex offences in India. (iv) BJD MP Shri Anubhab Mohanti strongly preached for Gender Neutral Laws in India. (v) In social media all over, specially in Tweeter, there are strong clamors for gender neutral criminal laws.

(vi) In it's 172nd recommendation, in Y 2000, The Law Commission of India recommended the Govt to make Indian laws dealing with sex assault gender neutral.

But despite all these, it is observed that, you are hellbent not to make the laws gender neutral and draconian, women centered, gender biased against adult men Status Quo of the laws (dealing with sex offences i.e. IPCs 375, 376, 354, 509 with all their subsections) remains in force. Please let me know from your Data Records, on which or what basis you are maintaining one sided, gender biased against adult men status quo of the laws despite strong demands for gender neutral laws everywhere?? To the best of my understanding, the factors preventing you from making the laws gender neutral, are with you in the form of Data Records. Please let me know.

2. To the best of my knowledge, at present, there are four Female Death Row Convicts (FDRC) in India, whose Mercy Petitions have finally been rejected by President of India office back in 2014. Have you ever taken any initiative officially, to expedite the executions of all those four FDRCs, in tune with the facts that neither any Indian Penal Code nor any Article of the Constitution of India categorically bars execution of FDRCs?? Please let me know 'Yes' or 'No'...... because, in case you officially have ever taken such initiative, I believe that is supposed to be in your Data Records.

3. In case the reply to the above query is 'No', please let me know about the preventing factors which compels your 'public authority' for deliberate violation of Preamble, Articles 14, 21, 39A of "The Constitution of India" & Gender Neutral Section 302 of Indian Penal Code & Judgement of Supreme Court of India."

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

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 CPIO, MHA vide letter dated 29.04.2024 wherein the Respondent has stated as under:

" 2. The reply of the RTI application was given on 16/06/2023, the text of which is:

"In this regard it is informed that the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, attempt has been made to elicit answer to your question. The applicants right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. Hence, your application is not covered under the term information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act."

Further, it is also stated here that the 1st appeal dated 28.10.2022 made by the applicant has not been received in this Wing for which the action on the same could not be taken.

3. In view of the facts that CPIO, Judicial Wing, MHA had already replied to her RTI application and her 1st Appeal having not been received in the Judicial Wing, MHA, it is humbly submitted that the reply on part of Judicial Wing of Ministry of Home Affairs may be taken into consideration. It is, further, submitted that there is no fact to be suppressed or to be furnished to the applicant. It is, therefore, requested that while considering above mentioned appeal of the applicant by the Hon'ble CIC, the reply on part of Judicial Wing of the Ministry of Home Affairs may also be taken into consideration."

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Mahesh Chandra - Dy. Secretary is present during hearing.

The Respondent stated that the reply had been duly sent to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, as mentioned in the written submission dated 29.04.2024 submitted before the Commission.

Decision:

In the light of the facts and circumstances, which emerge upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing averments of the Respondent, it is evident that appropriate reply had been sent by the PIO, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering the fact that the written submission dated 29.04.2024 filed by the Respondent is self explanatory, the Commission hereby directs the concerned PIO to send a copy of the said written submission, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress her case, hence no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)