CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2009/000545 dated 5.5.2009
& CIC/WB/A/2010/000303 dated 7.7.2010
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Vihar Durve
Respondent - 1. Department of Personnel & Training
2. Central Information Commission
Both appeals Heard: 22.7.2010
Decision announced: 30.7.2010
Facts
:
These are two appeals received Shri Vihar Durve of Pawan Vihar, Pune –
one stemming from information provided by CPIO Ms. Zoya C.B. of the DOPT
and the other against the information provided by CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar,
Central Information Commission. Since both hinge on the same issue, they have
been clubbed together for hearing.
1. File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000545
In this case, by an application of 18.11.08 addressed to DoPT, received
by CPIO only on 2.12.08 Shri Vihar Durve applied for the following information:
1 “Inform me and furnish me the name of Authority or
Ministry who is supposed to evaluate the Sec. 4 of RTI compliance of
each Govt. Department/Local Authority?
2 Inform me and furnish me the
method/procedure/technique/parameters how each CIC evaluates the
Sec. 4 of the RTI compliance?
3 Inform me and furnish me details of Power /
authority / duty / obligations cast on each CIC to evaluate sec. 4 of RTI
compliance.
4 Inform me and furnish me the advantages of
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI to RTI applicant and Govt.
Department or Local Authorities.
5 Inform me and furnish me the disadvantages of
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI to RTI applicant and Govt.
Department or Local Authorities.
1
6 Inform me and furnish me effect of evaluating sec. 4
compliance of RTI on India’s Transparency & Corruption Index or taking
RTI to its logical conclusion.
7 Inform me and furnish me effect of not evaluating
sec. 4 compliance of RTI on India’s Transparency & Corruption Index or
taking RTI to its logical conclusion.
8 Inform me and furnish me effect of evaluating sec. 4
compliance of RTI on Global Warming or taking RTI to its logical
conclusion.
9 Inform me and furnish me effect of not evaluating
sec. 4 compliance of RTI on Global Warming or taking RTI to its logical
conclusion.
10 Inform me and furnish me the budgetary provisions
meant for conducting yearly RTI Conclave by CIC.
11 Inform me and furnish me the cost of conducting yearly Conclave by CICs 12 Inform me and furnish me when will CIC,
compliance of Sec. 4 of RTI by yearly RTI compliance?
13 Inform me name of person who is supposed to
disseminate above information on CIC’s website? Why it is not
published? When will it be published
To this, he received pointwise reply dated 23.12.08 from CPIO Ms. Zoya
C.B., U.S. (RTI) informing him as follows:
“Point No. 1 & 2: Under Sec. 25(2) of the Act, the CIC may ask a
public authority in relation to the exercise of its function under this
Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may
give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which
ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.
Point No. 3: Powers & functions of the CIC and the State
Information Commissions are given under sec. 18 of the RTI Act,
2005.
Point No. 4 & 5: Does not form part of information.
Point No. 6 to 9: Information is not available with the CPIO
Point No. 10: There are no separate provisions for the same.
Point No. 11: Pertains to Central Information Commission.
Point No. 12: Information is not available.
Point No. 13: Pertains to Central Information Commission.”
Aggrieved by this response, for the reasons mentioned in his appeal, Shri
Durve moved an appeal before Ms. Anuradha Chagti, D.S., DOPT contesting
each point as below:
Point No1
2
“1. My appeal point: CPIO, CIC of India vide letter no.
CIC/CPIO/2008/1278 dated 27th Oct., 2008 has informed me
that Nodal Agency for monitoring Sec. 4 of RTI is Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Department of
Personnel & Training (attached herewith)
Therefore,
1) CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information and
furnish me supporting documents which states that
CIC of India is Nodal Agency to monitor sec. 4 of RTI.
2) Also CPIO be directed to be specific about what is meant
by SPIRIT of RTI Act.
Point No 2
2. My appeal point: CPIO, CIC of India vide letter no.
CIC/CPIO/2008/1278 dated 27 Oct 2008 has informed me
that Nodal Agency for monitoring Sec. 4 of RTI is Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, DOPT (attached)
herewith
Therefore
1. CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information
and furnish me supporting documents which states that CIC of India is
Nodal Agency to Monitor Sec. 4 of RTI.
2. Also CPIO be directed to be specific about what is
meant by Spirit of RTI Act.
3. CPIO be directed to inform me in detail the method /
procedure / technique / parameters how each CIC evaluates the sec. 4 of
RTI compliance.
Point No 3
3. My Appeal point: CPIO be directed to furnish me correct
information about obligation cast on each CIC to evaluate
sec. 4 of RTI compliance.
Point No. 5
4. My appeal point: CPIO can’t interpret what comes under RTI &
what does not interpretation of RTI Act is sole discretion of
Hon. Information Commissioners.
Hence CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information about
points No. 4 & 5.
Point No. 6:
5. My appeal point: CPIO be directed to forward my RTI
application where the information is available.
Point No 10
6. Also following information not furnished to me from my RTI
application 3(iii) (1) Daily progress made on … to (6) The
3
number of similar applications … is not furnished. Hence
CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information above
points.”
Upon this, Ms. Anuradha Chagti, DS (RTI) in her order of 17.2.09 has
found as follows:
“Point No. 1 to 2: Sec.4 (1) of the RTI Act reads as under:
a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner and the form which facilitates the right to information
under this Act and ensure that all records that are
appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time
and subject to availability of resources, computerised and
connected through a network all over the country on different
systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the
enactment of this Act,–
(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process,
including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records,
held by it or under its control or used by its employees
for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held
by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for
consultation with, or representation by, the members of
the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or
implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and
other bodies consisting of two or more persons
constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice,
and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils,
committees and other bodies are open to the public, or
the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its
officers and employees, including the system of
compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the
particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and
reports on disbursements made;
4
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes,
including the amounts allocated and the details of
beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or
authorisations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held
by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for
obtaining information, including the working hours of a
library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the
Public Information Officers;
(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and
thereafter update these publications every year; ”
c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies
or announcing the decisions which affect public;
d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial
decisions to affected persons.
Further Sec. 25(1) reads as “The Central Information Commission
or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, as
soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on
the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and
forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government.
No other supporting document is available with this Division.
Point 3 to 5: Information has been provided on what is available
with this Department. No other supporting document is available
with the Division.
Point No. 6: Information is neither available with the CPIO nor it is
known if such correlation has been done by any public authority.
Point No. 7: Information is neither available with the CPIO nor it is
known if such correlation has been done by any public authority.
Point No. 8: Information is neither available with the CPIO nor it is
known if such correlation has been done by any public authority.
Point No. 9: Information is neither available with the CPIO nor it is
known if such correlation has been done by any public authority.
5
Point No. 10: Information has already been provided. The
information desired is not maintained in any format and is therefore
not available with the CPIO.
It is reiterated that interpretation of the provisions of the Act is
beyond the scope of the Act.”
Appellant’s prayer in his second appeal before us is as below:
“a) CPIO, DOPT be directed to furnish me correct
information about the Nodal Agency to monitor
Compliance of Sec. 4 of Govt. Agencies when he / she
said Nodal Agency is CIC.
b) CPIO, CIC be directed to furnish me the
method, parameter etc. i.e. how DOPT monitors
Compliance of Sec. 4 of Govt. Agencies from year to
year basis.”
2. File No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000303
In this case Shri Durve by an application of 21.9.08 received by the CPIO
on 30.9.08 has sought the following information:
“1. Inform me and furnish me the name of Authority or Ministry
who is supposed to evaluate the Sec. 4 of RTI compliance of
each Govt. Department/Local Authority?
2. Inform me and furnish me the
method/procedure/technique/parameters how each CIC
evaluates the Sec. 4 of the RTI compliance?
3. Inform me and furnish me details of
Power / authority / duty / obligations cast on each CIC to
evaluate sec. 4 of RTI compliance.
4. Inform me and furnish me the advantages
of evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI to RTI applicant and
Govt. Department or Local Authorities.
5. Inform me and furnish me the
disadvantages of evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI to RTI
applicant and Govt. Department or Local Authorities.
6. Inform me and furnish me effect of
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI on India’s Transparency
& Corruption Index or taking RTI to its logical conclusion.
7. Inform me and furnish me effect of not
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI on India’s Transparency
& Corruption Index or taking RTI to its logical conclusion.
6
8. Inform me and furnish me effect of
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI on Global Warming or
taking RTI to its logical conclusion.
9. Inform me and furnish me effect of not
evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI on Global Warming or
taking RTI to its logical conclusion.
10. Inform me and furnish me the budgetary
provisions meant for conducting yearly RTI Conclave by
CIC.
11. Inform me and furnish me the cost of
conducting yearly Conclave by CICs
12. Inform me and furnish me when will CIC,
compliance of Sec. 4 of RTI by yearly RTI compliance?
13. Inform me name of person who is
supposed to disseminate above information on CIC’s
website? Why it is not published? When will it be
published?
AND
1. Daily progress made on my application so far i.e. when did my
application reach which officer for how long did it stay with
that officer and what was the action taken by her / him?
2. Name and designation of the officials / employees who were
supported to take action on my application and that of the
officer who is supposed to take final decision in the matter.
3. Copies of documents relating to my application with all the file
notings thereon.
4. How much is the time limit for disposal of applications of this
type, going by your rules or citizens charter.
5. Copies of action initiated against official and / or employees for
delaying action in the matter beyond the prescribed time limit
as per your rules or citizens charter.
6. The number of similar application received within seven days
from the receipt of my application and their respective
status.”
To this Shri Durve received a response point wise dated 29.1.08 from
CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary, informing him as follows:
“1. The Nodal Ministry for such valuation is Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of
Personnel & Training.
2. The CIC examines the issues of sec. 4 compliance in a case
that case before it in a complaint or an appeal under Sec.
18/19 of RTI Act.
7
3. The powers of the Commissioners/Commission are
described in Chapter 3 of the RTI Act.
4-5 CPIO provides information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. He cannot
interpret or evaluate the particular provisions of RTI Act.
You may seek legal opinion of an Advocate or an expert at
your level.
6-9. The Central Information Commission has a limited role of
examining a complaint or an Appeal. The non compliance of
Sec. 4 by a particular Public Authority only, and not
evaluating it in terms of transparency, corruption and Global
Warming.
10.11 The Commission does not hold any conclave however
it organized so far in two Conventions in 2006-07 & 2007-08.
No specific budget has been allocated in the Demands for
grant for the Annual Convention of CIC. Expenditure on the
Annual Conventions of CIC is incurred from out of the overall
funds allocated to CIC in the Demands for Grants.
Information specifies to holding of the convention on
expenditure incurred is not available. The conference wise
the expenditure is made out on two heads on different items,
activities requirements of the convention from heads “other
administrative expenses” and office expenses and payments
were also made in 2006 on travel expenses of some
invitees. It is re-emphasized that there is no separate head
for Conference / Convention.
12, 13 & 14: The CIC compliance with sec. 4 of the RTI Act every
year and is available in our web site www.cic.gov.in and the
web site is up dated periodically.
15 Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar in consultation with NIC for
Sec. 4 compliance.
1. Your application was received on 30.9.2008 and was
diarized by diary No. 41997/08 and it was received by the
CPIO on the same date. CPIO is supposed to reply to RTI
application.
2.3 The undersigned is replying the RTI application and there is
no noting on the subject.
4. As per the RTI Act 30 days are prescribed for disposal of
such RTI application by t he CPIO. In view of above there is no delay.
5. Details of Similar RTI applications received from 30.9.3008
to 10.10.2008 are enclosed with application A.”
Because of the perceived contradiction in information provided by DoPT
and CIC Shri Durve moved an appeal on 1.12.08 before the Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission contesting the information provided, as follows:
8
“1. As per Sec. 19(8) (a) of RTI
The CIC or State Information Commission. as the case may
be has the power to:
a) require the public authority to take any such action as
may be necessary to secure compliance with the
provisions of this act, including:
(i) by providing access to information, if so
requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be.
(iii) By publishing certain information or
categories of information.
(iv) By making necessary changes to its
practices in relation to the maintenance management and destruction or
records.
(v) By enhancing the provisions of training
on the right to information for its officials.
(vi) By providing it with an annual report in
compliance with clause (b) of sub section (I) of Sec. 4.
In light of above provisions, CPIO furnished me wrong information.
It is responsibility of CIC to assess the progress of suo moto
compliance of Sec. 4 and hence CPIO be directed to furnish me
correct information.
Appellant Shri Durve’s specific plea on all answers provided is athe
following:
1. Also CPIO be directed to inform me relevant portion / section from
the RTI Act i.e. the source of information from where he informed me that
the Nodal Ministry for such valuation is Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training.
2. Very specific information regarding Duty & Obligations cast on each
CIC to evaluate sec. 4 of RTI compliance was sought.
However, CPIO just referred to powers of information
Commissioners & Deliberately refused to furnish me details of
duty/obligation cast on Information Commission.
CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information about the duty /
obligation cast on Information Commissioners to evaluate sec. 4 of
RTI Compliance.”
3. CPIO be directed to furnish me correct information about the
advantages of evaluating sec. 4 compliance of RTI to RTI applicant and
Govt. Department or Local Authorities.
4. CPIO be directed to inform me the exact date & other necessary
details about when would CIC start discharging its duty & would conduct
9
yearly RTI conclave to monitor the progress of Sec. 4 compliance of all
Govt. Agencies.”
In his order of 16.1.09 Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan has arrived at the
following decision:
“Point No.1: At the time of hearing the appellant was asked
specifically what are his grievances against the reply of CPIO. The
appellant was emphatic that since CPIO has not given him any
document in support of the reply, he should supply the document
along with that. The matter was discussed with the CPIO and it
emerged that in view of the fact that DOPT is the nodal Ministry, the
CPIO’s reply cannot be considered wanting and accordingly this
issue should be treated as adequately replied. Subsequently the
appellant provided a copy of DOPT’s letter dated 23rd December,
2008 wherein DOPT has quoted sec. 25(5) and therefore,
according to the appellant the burden of Sec. 4 compliance by
public authorities falls on the CIC. Since this letter is of a
subsequent date, CPIO cannot be found wanting for not replying
accordingly and not supplying this document along with his reply.
Shri Tarun Kumar, however, emphasized that CPIO has not given
wrong information to which the appellant did not agree. First
Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties has come to the
conclusion that CPIO has replied on the basis of records /
information he had and cannot be faulted.
Point No. 2: The CPIO elaborated that he has given information
that Commission takes a view of sec. 4 disclosure on a case to
case basis at the time of disposal of complaints and appeals under
sec. 18 & 19 of the RTI Act. The CPIO agreed to supply a copy of
the Rules made by DOPT and the Regulations made by the
Commission in this regard.
Point No. 3 to 9: The appellant is satisfied with the reply.
Point No. 10 & 11: The reply of the CPIO with regard to Point No.
10 & 11 was not found adequate. The CPIO was accordingly
directed to provide the details of budget provision and actual
utilization in the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 for the
Annual Conventions. The Budget of the Commission may be put
on website as part of the mandatory disclosure u/s 4(1) (b) (xvi) if
not done already.
Point No. 12: The CPIO has given the reply, however, the appellant
is not satisfied with the reply and desired that he should be
informed of the exact date and other necessary details about when
would CIC start discharging its duty & would conduct yearly RTI
Conclave to monitor the progress of sec. 4 compliance of all Govt.
agencies. It was clarified by the CPIO that the Commission have10
complied with the sec. 4 of the RTI Act. It was decided that the
matter will be revisited and wherever required updated. It was
decided that the date of updating will also be put up against each
update.
Point No. 13: The appellant is satisfied with the reply.
6. Regarding other points, the reply submitted by the CPIO
were discussed in the light of the comments of the appellant and it was
agreed that if photo copy of the file of his RTI application is provided to the
appellant in full, it will suffice the query. CPIO is accordingly directed to
provide a copy of the same to the appellant.
7. First Appellate authority appreciated the effort made by Shri
Vihar Durve and Shri Rakesh Agarwal for participating and presenting
their point of view personally before the First Appellate Authority.”
In this case, appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
“a) CPIO, CIC be directed to furnish me with Documentary
Evidence about the Nodal Agency to monitor
compliance of Sec. 4 of Govt. Agencies when he said
Nodal Agency is DOPT Ministry.
b) CPIO, CIC be directed to furnish me the method,
parameter etc. i.e. how CIC monitors Compliance of Sec.
4 of Govt. Agencies from year to year basis.”
The key issue, therefore, in both cases is the appropriate authority under
the RTI Act to enforce compliance with sec. 4.
The appeal was heard by video conference on 22.7.2010. The following
are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Pune
Shri Vihar Durve
Respondent at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secy. CIC
Shri K. K. Girdhar, CPIO, DOPT
Observer at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Venkatesh Nayak
Shri R. K. Girdhar, CPIO, DOPT submitted that compliance with Sec. 4 of
the RTI Act 2005 is a statutory requirement. The relevant clause of the Act
11
through which this is to be enforced has been provided to appellant Shri Durve.
CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar on the other hand submitted that this authority will lie
with the “appropriate Government” u/s 26(3) (g) which specifically lays down as
follows:
26(3) The appropriate Government shall, if necessary, update and
publish the guidelines referred to in sub-section (2) at
regular intervals which shall, in particular and without
prejudice to the generality of sub-section (2), include–
(g) the provisions providing for the voluntary disclosure
of categories of records in accordance with section 4;
Both CPIOs submitted that it is not possible for either public authority to
regularly access compliance by public authorities within their jurisdictions.
Appellant Shri Durve on the other hand submitted that since it is within the
authority of Central Information Commission to monitor the implementation of the
RTI Act u/s 25 it will also be necessary for CIC to enforce compliance with sec. 4.
In a subsequent hearing in a separate case, appellant Shri Durve also referred to
a decision of this Commission in CCIC/WB/C/2009/000468 Vihar Durve vs. Rajya
Sabha Sectt. Regarding the Report of Department Related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances Law & Justice. However,
this is not the point at issue in the present hearing.
DECISION NOTICE
In this case, CPIOs, both of CIC & DOPT, have provided the information
sought by appellant Shri Vihar Durve in the form held by them and according to
their understanding of the law. However, what emerges from the appeals is an
apparent hiatus in the law with regard to enforcement of compliance with sec. 4
which is a vital element of the law to achieve the objective of the law described in
its preamble “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority”. While, therefore, both appeals are dismissed, this Commission
places on record its appreciations of the efforts of appellant Shri Vihar Durve in
agitating a point which deserves attention both by the Information Commission
and the Government. The clarification of this issue will, therefore, be pursued by
12
the Central Information Commission with the DOPT with reference to the Report
of Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee of on Personnel,
Public Grievances Law & Justice to avoid any ambiguity in imposition or
enforcement of this clause thereby hopefully leading to closer adherence with the
letter and spirit of the law.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber on
30.7.’10. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
30.7.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
30.7.2010
13
14