In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000498
Date of Hearing : May 18, 2011
Date of Decision : May 25, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Mr. N N S Rana
Q60, First Floor,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondent
1. Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board,
New Delhi
2. Appellate Authority
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board,
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Sunil Kumar, DS(D&A)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The Commission directs the concerned CPIO, Ministry of Railways that the file notings as sought by
the Appellant be provided to him using the Section 10 to sever the names of officers who may have dealt
with or given their opinions therein by or within 25th June 2011.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000498
Date of Hearing : May 18, 2011
Date of Decision : May 25, 2011
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dated 02.06.2010 with the Ministry of Railways seeking file
notings right from 13.1.2000 on the file dealing with disciplinary proceedings against the
Applicant. The Applicant also sought file notings for the period between 04.10.96 to 16.12.96 of
MOSR and various other officers of the Railway Board in the allegedly false complaint of sexual
harassment. The PIO responded on 06.07.2010 furnishing the information from the Directorate
(s) concerned. The information was denied to the Applicant seeking exemption under Section 8
(1) (b) stating that the same issue was sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Furthermore, the Public Authority cited that the information was barred from disclosure under
Section 8 (1) (e), (i) and (j) also.
2. Being aggrieved by such response from the Public Authority, the Applicant filed a First Appeal
dated 04/06.08.2010 with the Appellate Authority viz. the Addl. Member (Staff) Railway Board
challenging the PIO’s order alleging that the PIO had rejected the RTI application seeking
exemption under incorrect applying improper provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant
herein rebutted each of the grounds of exemption sought by the Respondent with detailed
reasons. The Appellate Authority responded vide letter dated 04.10.2010 enclosing a brief note
about the case. The Appellate Authority rejected the First Appeal upholding and justifying the
CPIO’s order dated 06.07.2010.
3. Being thus denied the information, the Appellant approached the Central Information Commission
with the instant Appeal dated 24.12.2010 challenging the acts/omissions of the Public Authority
contending various factual and legal propositions in details. In the instant appeal, the Appellant
agreed that his case is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Respondent Ministry having
challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court which had been in favor of the Appellant.
However, it is also a matter of fact that there was no specific order of the Apex Court either
staying the impugned decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court nor any Supreme Court order
directing all information pertaining to the instant matter to be kept under wraps of confidentiality.
Apart from these contentions, the Appellant has reiterated the contentions from his previous
submissions in the form of the RTI application and First Appeal. The Commission upon
registering the case, issued notice dated 08.04.2011 calling the parties to the hearing on
18.05.2011.
Decision
4. During the hearing, the Appellant and the Respondents reiterated their contentions briefly as
already submitted in the Appeal before the Commission. The Commission notes that
the Respondent has sought exemption under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act, which reads thus:
“….(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or
tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;”
However, the Respondent has failed to refer/rely on any Court/ Tribunal direction/order
forbidding the publishing/dissemination of information pertaining to the instant case. Hence
providing the information will not constitute contempt of court in so far as the Section 8 (1) (b)
of the RTI Act 2005 is concerned, in this case. Since there is no specific order/direction from
the Apex Court prohibiting the disclosure of information, Contempt of Court proceedings are
clearly not attracted. Also, since the final order passed by the Delhi High Court on 04.12.2008
has not been stayed so far by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the said order has
attained finality. Likewise, the Respondents have failed to prove the applicability of Section 8
(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 in this case, having merely reasoned that “….deliberations made
under complete confidence …are under fiduciary relationship..” The argument of the
Respondent lacks reason and merit about applicability of the Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act
2005 because in a fiduciary relation, there need to be two parties, one in a position of trust
with respect to the other, such that one is in a position to influence the other. No such relation
of holding information in fiduciary capacity could be established by the Respondents.
Likewise, seeking exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8 () (i) and (j) also
defy logic and reasoning. The exemptions sought by the Respondent are not applicable to
prevent disclosure of the information in this case. The Commission has also gone through the
recent decision in a related matter, viz. WP (C) No. 1810/2011 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi on 18.03.2011 in the case of Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of
Railways versus N N S Rana, wherein it has been held that:
“…4. In the context of the proceedings pending by way of the contempt petition
in this Court or the Special Leave Petition pending in the Supreme Court, the
Respondents cannot possibly deny to the Respondent the DPC proceedings
concerning him. No prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if the DPC
proceedings concerning the Respondent are disclosed to him subject to Section
10 of the RTI Act….”
Therefore, based on the submissions of the parties, the arguments addressed during the
hearing and the decisions of the CIC and the decision of the Delhi High Court as discussed
above, the Commission directs that the file notings as sought by the Appellant be provided to
him using the Section 10 to sever the names of officers who may have dealt with or given their
opinions therein. The information to be provided by or within 25th June 2011.
5. The Appeal is thus disposed of on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. N N S Rana
Q60, First Floor,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
2. Public Information Officer
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board,
New Delhi
3. Appellate Authority
Ministry of Railways
Railway Board,
New Delhi
4. Officer in Charge, NIC