CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001781/4807
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001781
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta
A – 68, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi – 110027.
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Registrar
University of Delhi
Main Campus, Delhi - 110007.
RTI application filed on : 23/05/2009
PIO replied : 27/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 29/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 30/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 24/07/2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information regarding date and time of some
examination
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO(After the 1st Appeal
filed)
1. Time of examination of those The female candidates of part – III and
female candidates who were in repeating any paper of part – II will be
Part – III and was repeating paper examined in the Evening session i.e. 3 pm
of part – II. to 6 pm.
2. Time of commencement of the This examination will be held in the
examination of B.A. (Programme) Evening session i.e. 3 pm to 6 pm.
III year for the External candidate
cell who was repeating paper of
Part – II under “History – IV B –
140 Cultural Transformation in
Early Modern Europe: Circa 1500-
1800″ which was held on
12/06/2009.
3. Details of action taken for There was no error in the date sheet with
modification of Date Sheet on regard to timing of the paper. The timing
internet on urgent basis as the with regard to part – I, Part – II and Part –
examination was nearing. III examinations were clear and there was
4. Name and designation of the no confusion at all.
official who were responsible for
the lapse in question.
Note: The PIO vide letter 27/05/2009 had replied that the query of the Appellant’s RTI
application was not covered under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act and had said that the
information will be provided to the Appellant on receiving the relevant input from the
concerned office.
Ground of First Appeal:
Non receipt of proper information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in its order observed that the information had been provided to the Appellant
after he filed an appeal. He further added that there was no need to take any action as the
information had already been provided.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of proper information from the PIO and the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO
The Appellant has been provided with the information. He alleges that some of the
information is incorrect without giving any supporting documents. The Appellant has
claimed that this RTI query should have been answered in 48 hours under the provision
of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Proviso of Section 7(1) states that where the information sought concerns the life
and liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt
of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is
that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether
the information sought concerns the life and liberty of a person has to be carefully
scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon.
The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI
Applications can be given within forty-eight hours. A broad interpretation of ‘life and
liberty’ would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards
replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very
special exception for cases involving ‘life and liberty’ so that it would be used only when
an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved.
The life and liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an
imminent danger to the life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information
may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is
threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the
disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the
information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of
Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is
well aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to
information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in
all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to
life and liberty can be proven.
The Commission has perused the RTI Application filed by the Appellant and has
come to the conclusion that non-disclosure will not lead to an imminent threat to life or
liberty of the Appellant. However, the Appellant may approach the appropriate First
Appellate Authority or the Commission if he is aggrieved by the response sent by the
PIO, DU within thirty days from the date of receiving the RTI Application.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)