Samir Sardana vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 12 September, 2023

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 12 September, 2023

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657278
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635779
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657277
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635780
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646550
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646302
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/641872
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635775
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635776
                                     CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635777

Shri Samir Sardana                                                ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Date of Hearing                       :    08.08.2023
Date of Decision                      :    12.09.2023
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.

  Case      RTI Filed    CPIO reply       First appeal            FAO       2nd Appeal
   No.         on                                                          received on
 657278    22.02.2022    20.07.2022       12.09.2022              -        01.11.2022
 635779    22.02.2022    12.05.2022       15.05.2022     -                 01.07.2022
 657277    14.04.2022    10.05.2022       11.09.2022          -            01.11.2022
 635780    22.02.2022    10.05.2022       15.05.2022     -                 01.07.2022
 646550    22.02.2022    07.06.2022       20.06.2022      -                31.08.2022
 646302    22.02.2022    04.07.2022       06.07.2022      -                26.08.2022
 641872    25.02.2022    30.05.2022       06.06.2022     -                 02.08.2022
 635775    22.02.2022    11.05.2022       15.05.2022     -                 01.07.2022
 635776    22.02.2022    11.05.2022       15.05.2022     -                 01.07.2022
 635777    22.02.2022    10.05.2022       15.05.2022     -                 01.07.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

Page 1 of 13

(1) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657278 (2) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635779 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking information related to planned shutdowns of each unit of NPCIL in the last 3 years;

Accident/Incident Management policy and manual of NPCIL; Nuclear Security Events in each unit in the last 7 years, Nuclear Accidents and Incidents that have taken place in each unit of NPCIL in the last 7 years; Nuclear Accidents and Incidents as per the International nuclear and radiological event scale; burn up rates; spent fuel Inventory; pending new projects; finance and insurance in NPCIL; etc. The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letters dated 12.05.2022 and 20.07.2022 furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 15.05.2022 & 12.09.2022 which were not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.

Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. At the outset he denied receipt of the written submission from the Respondent. He also stated that the order against the first appeal was pronounced by the FAA after a lapse of a substantive time period and after the date of filing of his Second Appeal. On the merits of the Second Appeal, he argued that information regarding the planned/ unplanned shutdown of units and the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP)/Accident Management Policy were not disclosed. Similarly statistical information regarding the number of nuclear security events in each unit of NPCIL and date of final inquiry/ forensic report on the cyber hack of Kudankulam unit by the CISAG and CERT-IN was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (a) of the Act without any reasons/ justifications. He further stated that only the average aggregate data of the number of nuclear accidents was provided instead of providing the data of each unit separately for the last 7 years.

Subsequent to the hearing, Smt Shradha Gupta, APIO and Sr. Manager (HR) vide email dated 09.08.2023 conveyed that the written submissions in all the 10 matters of NPCIL listed on 08.08.2023 were forwarded to the Appellant through speed post. She also added that information regarding the number of shutdowns in NPCIL (unit wise) alongwith the reasons for not disclosing the EOP/ Accident Management Policy which was sought in the instant 2 Second Appeals was provided to the Appellant at this stage.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Regarding denial of information u/s 8 (1) (a), the Commission refers to the decision of the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Court had in the context of an RTI application seeking Certified Copy of the letter written by the Chief Minister of J&K, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister and records pertaining to any action taken held as under:

"7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The information sought pertains to a correspondence which emanated apparently from the Chief Minister of JandK, Sh. Omar Abdullah to the Prime Minister of India. Even according to the petitioner, the said letter pertains to the issue of deployment of defence forces in the State of JandK. There is no gain saying that JandK is a sugeneris State within the Union of India in respect of which the respondents would exchange information with State authorities from time having security implications. The background circumstances do point to the fact that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications. The judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other. In this particular case, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the information sought has security implications. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this court would be slow to interfere with the decision arrived at in that behalf."

The Commission also takes note of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Sundarrajan vs Union Of India & Ors CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 OF 2013 decided on 06.05.2013 where issues pertaining to the safety, security and environment hazards of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant were examined in great detail. The relevant extract of the decision are as under:

Page 3 of 13

13. This Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1997 )7SCC 592 held that unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is invalid in constitutional or statutory mandate, court's interference is not called for. Reference may also be made in the judgment of this Court in M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration &Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 635; Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v.

State of Uttranchal and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 418 and Delhi Bar Association v. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 628. We are therefore firmly of the opinion that we cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken by the Government of India, NPCIL etc. for setting up of KKNPP at Kudankulam in view of the Indo-Russia agreement. Courts also cannot stand in the way of the Union of India honouring its Inter-Governmental Agreement entered into between India and Russia.

188. We have noticed that, so far as this case is concerned, from the safety and security point of view of life and property, on environment and all that related aspects, all the Expert Bodies are unanimous in their opinion that KKNPP has fully satisfied all safety norms to safeguard the human life, property and environment which, we are sure, will allay the fears and apprehensions expressed by the people living in and around Kudankulam. The Court, in our view, cannot sit in judgment on the views expressed by the Technical and Scientific Bodies in setting up of KKNPP plant at Kudankulam and on its safety and security.

Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

(3) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657277 (4) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635780 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 & 14.04.2022 seeking information related to annual report of L&T Special Steels & Heavy Forgings Private limited; details of R&M for Plant and Machinery and Others for FY 2020 and 2021; Security Expenses incurred by NPCIL in the last 3 years excluding amount paid to CISF or CAPF; Audits conducted since last 5 years, value of purchases through a single tender in last 3 financial years; Blacklisted vendors in last 5 years; recovery of liquidated damages from vendors, imports by NPCIL in FY 2020 and 2021, details of decommissioning fund, NAPS, Legal & Professional expenses of NPCIL in FY 2020 and 2021, litigation details, etc. The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letter dated 10.05.2022 furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant.

Page 4 of 13

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 15.05.2022 & 11.09.2022 which were not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.

(5) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646550 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking the following information related to the details of R&M for Plant and Machinery and Others for FY 2020 and 2021 and Security Expenses incurred by NPCIL since the last 3 years excluding amount paid to CISF or CAPF.

The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letter dated 07.06.2022 furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available record.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He referred to his written submission dated 04.08.2023 and argued that value based data pertaining to R&M for Plant and Machinery was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 without any justification. He further argued that incomplete information regarding security expenses incurred by NPCIL was provided and that details regarding security audit of NPCIL were also incorrectly rejected u/s 8 (1)(a) of the Act. In addition, no information was provided regarding ongoing and concluded litigation of NPCIL as on 31.03.2021 and that Section 8 (1) (a) was claimed without any reasons/ justification.

The Respondent represented by Shri Bipin Kr Sinha, CPIO and Addl Chief Engineer; Shri Sanjeev Kr Singh Dy Chief Engineer; Shri A K Saxena, Associate Director; Shri S Chandramouli, Chief Engineer Operations; Shri Praveen Kumar, Dy Manager (Legal) and Smt Shradha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager (HR) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Sinha stated that point wise information was provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 10.05.2022 and 07.06.2022. In addition, vide letter dated 12.05.2022, a copy of which was attached with the written submission dated 07.08.2023, information regarding the list of cases litigated in respect of NAPS was also provided. He added that the copy of JV between NPCIL and L&T was not provided being exempted u/s 8 (1) (d) of the Act since the JV agreement itself provides that both the parties should not Page 5 of 13 disclose to any third party any confidential information including the agreement. The information regarding the name of the security agencies deployed in various units of NPCIL and the service provider/ supplier for Repairs and Maintenance (R&M) of plant and machinery was denied u/s 8 (1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act since information sought contains the personal information of the agencies which is available with the department in fiduciary relationship. Generic information regarding audits of NPCIL was provided to the Appellant. However, the complete scope was not discussed as it could affect the security and safety of the nuclear power plants.

Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of view that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided on all points. Furthermore, considering the strategic nature of activities performed by the Respondent public authority and in view of the fact that disclosure of information regarding the names of the security agencies deployed in various units of NPCIL and the service provider/ supplier for Repairs and Maintenance (R&M) of plant and machinery can have security implications, the Commission is also not inclined to allow any further disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act. The observations made in CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657278 and CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635779 regarding applicability of Section 8 (1) (a) are relevant in the instant matter as well. In view of the above, no other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeals which stand disposed off accordingly.

(6) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646302 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking information related to delay analysis reports prepared by NPCIL or DAE or ASE or Consultant or jointly by any of the preceding with regard to the Kudankulam projects of NPCIL and number of pages in each report; list of Electrical, Mechanical, Instrumentation and Control items that were damaged or developed faults as observed in the E&C of Kudankulam -1; value of escalation charges paid to contractors in Kudankulam -1 and 2; vendors to whom work orders for value of Rs 5 Crores were given, etc. The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letter dated 04.07.2022 furnished a point wise reply to the CPIO.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.

Page 6 of 13

(7) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635777 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking information related to reply of NPCIL to CAG's Observations in Report No 15 of 2016 (Vol 1) Para 1.1 relating to conveyance allowance, etc; number of agreements executed by NPCIL with M/s Lee & Muirhead Ltd (m/s L&M) since 2004, etc The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letter dated 10.05.2022 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.05.2022 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 during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that he was raising similar issues in these matters regarding erection and commissioning of Kudankulam-1 project. He argued that delay in commissioning of the project was resulting in cost overrun which is a matter of larger public interest hence all the information sought in the RTI application should be provided. Furthermore, details of contract with ASE were denied incorrectly u/s 8 (1) (d) of the Act despite the fact that a long period has lapsed since the signing of the contract and that the information sought is in the larger public interest.

The Respondent represented by Shri Bipin Kr Sinha, CPIO and Addl Chief Engineer; Shri Sanjeev Kr Singh Dy Chief Engineer; Shri A K Saxena, Associate Director; Shri S Chandramouli, Chief Engineer Operations; Shri Praveen Kumar, Dy Manager (Legal) and Smt Shradha Gupta, APIO and Sr Manager (HR) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Sinha stated that all information that was permissible for disclosure as per the RTI Act, 2005 and held and available in their records was provided to the Appellant. The details regarding the price negotiations and contract with ASE and M/s Lee & Muirhead Ltd were denied u/s 8 (1) (d) since the information was available in commercial confidence disclosure of which would affect the competitive position of the third parties. Regarding the delay analysis report he stated that as per the earlier reply of the CPIO the same was not finalised, till the date of providing the reply. Similarly in the response dated 10.05.2022 it was mentioned that information regarding the reply to the CAG's observation was yet to be received from the Directorate of Finance/ AD (F&A) and Directorate of HR/ AGM (HR-Policy), NPCIL and would be provided in due course of time.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is satisfied with the replies provided to the Appellant as only such information that is held and available on the record of the public authority can be provided to the information seeker. In the context of non Page 7 of 13 disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:

14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."

However, Shri Bipin Kr Sinha, CPIO and Addl Chief Engineer is directed to provide the updated status of finalisation of the delay analysis report and the reply to the CAG's observations to the Appellant by 15.10.2023 under intimation to the Commission. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

(8) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/641872 (9) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635775 (10) CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635776 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated22.02.2022 & 25.02.2022 seeking the information related to details of reactors of NPCIL under IAEA Safeguards at the end of FY 2020, 2021 and 2022; inspections and surveys of IAEA since the last 5 years; units of NPCIL which were operated as base load power plants since last 5 years; quantity of Spent Fuel Discharge in the last 5 years; Fuel use charges of last 3 years, quantity of HW used by NPCIL from each HWP of DAE in last 5 years.

The CPIO/Addl. General Manager (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited vide letter dated 11.05.2022 and 30.05.2022 furnished point wise replies to the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 15.05.2022 & 06.07.2022 which were not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Page 8 of 13

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.

Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He referred to his written submission and stated that the information regarding the fuel imported for safeguarded and unsafeguarded reactors; inspection and survey reports of IAEA; details of the spent fuel discharged from each unit; returning of defective fuel/ Heavy Water (HW) to suppliers; short supply/ delayed supply of fuel/ HW by suppliers, etc was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (a) without any reasons/ justifications. He argued that when similar information regarding value of imports and imports and exports of fuel of sites under IAEA safeguards are disclosed by China and the IAEA respectively, the rationale of non disclosure of information by NPCIL is incomprehensible.

The argument of the Appellant that similar information is disclosed by other countries falls flat as disclosure of information has to be examined in the light of the existing norms under the RTI Act, 2005 and after ascertaining if disclosure is in larger public interest/ national interest and if exemptions under any of the clauses mentioned u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act are attracted. This aspect has been succinctly examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015, the relevant extracts of which are as under:

"76. But neither the Fundamental Rights nor the Right to Information have been provided in absolute terms. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 Clause 1(a) are restricted under Article 19 clause 2 on the grounds of national and societal interest. Similarly Section 8, clause 1 of Page 9 of 13 Right to Information Act, 2005, contains the exemption provisions where right to information can be denied to public in the name of national security and sovereignty, national economic interests, relations with foreign states etc. Thus, not all the information that the Government generates will or shall be given out to the public. It is true that gone are the days of closed doors policy making and they are not acceptable also but it is equally true that there are some information which if published or released publicly, they might actually cause more harm than good to our national interest... if not domestically it can make the national interests vulnerable internationally and it is more so possible with the dividing line between national and international boundaries getting blurred in this age of rapid advancement of science and technology and global economy. It has to be understood that rights can be enjoyed without any inhibition only when they are nurtured within protective boundaries. Any excessive use of these rights which may lead to tampering these boundaries will not further the national interest.

Before parting with these Second Appeals, the Commission observes that the Appellant has resorted to filing multiple RTI applications on diverse issues relating to nuclear safety/ security and energy security which require collation and compilation of records by the public authority. Even if the Commission were to reluctantly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, however noble the purpose of this vigorous attempt to bring about probity in the functioning of NPCIL would have been, the fact remains that the means adopted by him by inundating the Public Authority with multiple RTI cases unfortunately only points to the ignorance of the Appellant about the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combatting corruption.

The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J.Pasayat had held:

".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go Page 10 of 13 unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."

Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:

"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."

Emphasis supplied The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:

"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."

Emphasis supplied In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West-B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that:

Page 11 of 13

"8. .....Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto..."

The aforesaid dicta essentially prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.

The Apex Court in a vital decision has categorically cautioned thus:

"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and

(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency.

However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use.." (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).

Emphasis supplied In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:

"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests Page 12 of 13 which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................

37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability............................. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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..."

Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 12 September, 2023