Central Information Commission
Sunny Joseph vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 13 March, 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/PBSEC/A/2022/602600
SUNNY JOSEPH अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Director
General (Engg.), Prasar
Bharati, Directorate General.
Doordarshan, RTI Cell,
Doordarshan Bhawan, New
Delhi- 110001. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/03/2023
Date of Decision : 10/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 28/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 10/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 12/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2021 seeking the following information:1
" 1) Certified copy of all the documents in the file in connection with the inquiry made on the untoward incident which happened on 05/06/2019 in the transport section of DDK Thiruvananthapuram and have issued a Memorandum, with file No.101/2019-E/ DKT- Inquiry- SJ-AE/27 dated 17/12/2020, to the applicant.
2) Certified copy of the relevant letter from the higher authority that made Shri. S. Sanjeev, DG (E), DDK, Thiruvananthapuram as the Inquiry Officer on the untoward incident which is dealt in query no.1 above.
3) Clarification on the contradictory statement in the said Memorandum in query no.1 above that the inquiry officer made clear in the Memo that an incident happened on 05/06/2019 in the transport section of DDK Thiruvananthapuram but from his wording "alleged physical aggression" he is not sure about the physical aggression in the incident even after his inquiry.
4) Why the inquiry officer on the incident which happened on 05/06/2019 in the transport section of DDK Thiruvananthapuram cannot be made disqualified on the basis of the contradictory statement in the relevant Memo said in query no.1 above and on the basis of the improper inquiry made by the officer that he purposefully hide the fact that Sunny Joseph, AE, DDK, Thiruvananthapuram was the Technical Director in the Studio Block on 05/06/2019, the incident day, which was holiday.
5) Certified copy the complaint made on the untoward incident which happened on 05/06/2019 in the transport section of DDK Thiruvananthapuram to the police by the then Head of Office, DDK, Thiruvananthapuram and the enquiry report of the police if any have been received by DDK Thiruvananthapuram by clearly indicating its date of reception with the support of the relevant page of inward register."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.07.2021 stating as under:
"Since the information sought under RTI Act attract rule 8(1)(h), the information cannot be disclosed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.08.2021. FAA's order, dated 12.10.2021 directed the CPIO to obtain the information from ADG (SZ) and provide it to the appellant.
2In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided the following reply on 17.09.2021:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information on points 1,3,4 & 5 of the RTI Application, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Raju Varghese, DDG & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant was heard at length, and the sum and substance of his arguments was that the plea of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act does not subsist in the matter as the inquiry referred to here is not a judicial inquiry. He further argued that for point no.5 of the RTI Application he has received the information under some other RTI Application and is in possession of the complaint copy which was forwarded to the police under the forwarding letter of the DDG/DDK, therefore the reply of the CPIO is false in this case.
The CPIO narrated the factual background of the case which is some incident that took place between the Appellant and a Transport Department clerk, after which the said clerk appears to have filed a police complaint but he is not privy to the text of the complaint or the issue at large. He further submitted on the lines of the written submissions filed by him stating as under:3
"The RTI application of Sh Sunny Joseph for the 5 points were replied by CPIO Directorate General Doordarshan Delhi as there was only CPIO at Directorate level and not at field offices at that time. CPIO, Directorate General, Doordarshan, New Delhi has refused the information as per clause 8(1)h. RTI applicant appealed to First Appellate Authority. The FAA has directed to provide additional information and it was given and to collect information on point 1 from Additional Director General(E)SZ, Chennai and provide to the applicant. The following are observed after disposal by FAA:-
Point 1 - It is seen that ADG (E) SZ,Chennai, as per RTI act of 2005, as the report contains third party personal information informed CPIO that " As per Ministry of Home affairs letter No. F-30/5/61-AVD dated 25-8-1961 Para-6 "It is clear that that a report submitted to Government or other competent authority by an officer appointed to hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain facts are usually confidential intended only to satisfy the competent authority whether further action in the nature of regular departmental or any other action is called for". As no public interest is brought out and also contains many personal details of others involved in the above inquiry and being exempted under section 8 (1) (j) as reasoned above." Accordingly CPIO, DG, Doordarshan informed the applicant. If it is needed, it has to be provided by CPIO ADG (A)(SZ), Chennai.
Point 2 - Information is seen to be provided Point 3 - It is a query and no information provided Point 4 - It is a query and no information provided Point 5 - It is seen that information is provided.
The doubt raised by the applicant producing a document forwarding the complaint of a staff member to police by DDK Thiruvananthapuram is to be treated as a complaint made by DDK Thiruvananthapuram to police is a matter to be decided. As per the applicant application to CIC this information has already been received in another RTI. If it is needed to be provided it will be provided by CPIO DDK Thiruvananthapuram."
Upon a further query from the Commission, the CPIO clarified that the complaint under contention at point no.5 of the RTI Application was filed by a third party. He also clarified that the inquiry report referred to at point no.1 of the RTI Application contains information related to the Appellant.4
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is not specific in a strict sense but is premised on a grievance and has an interrogative. More specifically, points 3 & 4 are not covered under the definition of information as envisaged in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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, 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 washeld 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:5
"7....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 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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, as for the contention of the Appellant on point no.5 of the RTI Application, the Commission observes that the Appellant has admitted to have received the information through another RTI Application perhaps, but his angst is 6 that he believes the CPIO has provided a false reply to point no.5, while the CPIO has clarified at this stage that 'whether the complaint of the staff forwarded by DDK to the police is to be deemed as a complaint made by DDK itself is to be looked into.' It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant seeks to challenge the merits of the reply thus provided by the CPIO to point no.5 of the RTI Application based on how he interprets the genesis of the averred complaint. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Now, therefore the limited scope of action pertinent in the matter is with respect to point no.1 of the RTI Application, since the averred inquiry report concerns the Appellant primarily, the CPIO is directed to revisit the said point and procure the available information from the concerned record holder to provide the extracts of the inquiry report that contain the reference of the Appellant. In other words, 7 while providing the available information, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the portions that pertain to the personal information of other individuals as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act or which may 'endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security' as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The redaction of records, if any, will be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
The information to be provided in compliance with this order shall be free of cost. The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (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