Central Information Commission
Hukma Raj Badala vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 29 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/LOKSS/A/2019/117753
Hukma Raj Badala ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Parliament of India
Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07-01-2019 FA 28-02-2019 SA : 16-04-2019
CPIO : 21-02-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 21-12-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Parliament of India, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information regarding Bofors report, Harshad Mehta report, Market scam reprt, etc. on two points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) "kindly intimate the action taken by govt at that time with information and amount involved, name of responsible officials, action taken so far against defaulters or it is kept in cold storage or referred to CVC/CAG/SC for deciding the scam in each case in above JPC's;
(ii) Amount spent in conducting JPCs separately in each case & repeated adjournments of parliament before JPC Announced.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 28.02.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The response of FAA is not on record. He filed a second appeal u/Section Page 1 of 5 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri K Sona, ACPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated nil and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 07.01.2019.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 21.02.2019, they have informed the appellant that JPCs had become functus officio after submitting its reports. The reports of the above JPCs are available at the link: Parliament of India- loksabha.nic.in-Committees-Investigative JPCs. The respondent further submitted that they have again furnished a revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant in their written submissions.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent has given the information to the appellant as available on record of the respondent public authority.
8. The Commission, after examining the RTI application of the appellant, has observed that queries of the appellant are very wide, non-specific and general in nature. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
9. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, Page 2 of 5 contracts, report, 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 context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other Page 3 of 5 law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
10. The respondent is directed to share a copy of their written submissions with the appellant, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 512. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आयु त)
Information Commissioner (स त
दनांक / Date 21.12.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Parliament of India
Lok Sabha Secretariat
RTI Cell, Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001
2. Hukma Raj Badla
Page 5 of 5