Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000046SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 2 June 2011
Date of decision : 2 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri S Rajendran
No. 32, 6th Cross,
LBS Nagar, Bangaluru - 38.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Anita Gupta, AS & FAA,
(ii) Shri Tarun Kumar, JS,
(iii) Shri D.C. Singh, Nodal CPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was present
in the Bangalore studio of the NIC while the Respondents were present in our
chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. Although the Appellant had sought a number of information on (a) the
status of the DRDO as an exempted organisation under the Right to Information
CIC/WB/A/2010/000046SM
(RTI) Act and (b) on what could constitute human rights violation so as to merit
disclosure of information by organisations otherwise exempted from the
application of the RTI Act. In response, the CPIO had informed him that no
government order laying down what would constitute human rights violation for
the purposes of the Right to Information (RTI) Act was available.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that since the proviso to
section 24 clearly mandated that even exempted organisations would have to
disclose information relating to allegations of human rights violation, there must
be some guidelines which the CIC should be following in determining such
cases. He was advised that no such guidelines existed nor the government or
any other authority had issued any such set of guidelines. He was further
informed that, on a case to case basis, the CIC decided whether a particular
information pertained to an allegation of human rights violation or not. What the
Appellant has sought would involve an interpretation of the provisions of the
Act, beyond the competence of the CPIO. Therefore, we do not find anything
wrong in the response of the CPIO or the findings of the Appellate Authority.
5. The appeal has no merit. It is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
CIC/WB/A/2010/000046SM
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000046SM