CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000427 dated 30-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain
Respondent: Intelligence Bureau, (IB)
Heard and decision announced 18.6.'10
FACTS
By an application of 25-7-2008 Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain of Jangpura, New
Delhi addressed to the Central Information Commission sought the following
information:
“What information is required from Central Information Commission:
1. Who is the CPIO and Appellate Authority for Intelligence
Bureau?
2. What legal action is recommended by Hon’ble Commission if
information obtained under RTI is against rules and rules and laws laid in
constitution of India?
What information is required from IB under section 8 (2) is as
follows:-
In case CPIO, IB doesn’t have information for any relevant para,
he/ she may seek information from their American and British
counterparts. British GMC and American FBI have communicated
to share information to legal Indian counterparts. Under RTI, there
is provision to seek information from public authorities who do
come under purview of RTI Act, 2005. Example-A citizen can seek
information about private airline Airport Authority of India.
1) Valid Email addresses for communication with Intelligence
Bureau authorities.
2) Was tampering/ overwriting of name on Indian passport by
citizen of India allowed?
3) In this case ‘the third party’ with his surname ‘PRASAD’
leaves Indian shores to UK and thereafter from UK to USA he changes his
surname to ‘VANKAYALAPATT’? Is this practice allowed?
4) Are the immigration stamps in passport made available by
Medical council of India valid? (Folder: Passport with Medical Co. (DIR)
Passport copy with MCI).
5) Did he immigrate back to India from USA? If not which
country did he immigrated back to India?
6) Can a ‘Place of Issue and identification marks’ in passport
be intentionally left blank as in this case (Passport no. K493099)?
1
7) American Board of Paediatrics in their communications
addressed to me against fees of 25 US Dollars in 2005 has stated ‘Dr.
V.S. V. Prasad is declared unknown and there are no records’ so who
actually travelled on this expired passport no. K493099 with surname
changed to VANKAYALAPATI.
8) Certified photocopy of Embarkment and Disembarkment
forms filled by holder of passport no. K493099 for entire validity period of
passport that is 1991 to 2001.
9) Earlier his passport carried surname as ‘PRASAD’ and now
through agent he got it renewed with surname as ‘VANKAYALAPATI’? Is
this practice allowed?
10) Did Mr. PRASAD alias Mr. VANKALYALAPATI actually
emigrated abroad from India or was there some other person considering
the fact there is heavy contradictions in information available at AIIMS,
Ministry of External Affairs, ICSE educational board and Rishi Valley
School.
11) Can an American Visa be acquired with different name other
than name written in passport?
12) Entire Immigration details as per records of IB for his
passport K493099 from 1991 to 2001?
13) Given name and surname as per immigration records for
passport number K493099.
14) Given name and surname as per immigration records for his
renewed passport number E4328067 issued by Regional Passport Office,
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
15) Kindly seek copy of passport no. K493099 from British and
American Counterparts as he had immigrated to USA via UK on changed
identity as per information obtained under Right to Know law of America.”
To this Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain received a response from CPIO, Shri Tarun
Kumar, JS, CIC dated 18-8-2008 informing him as follows:
‘1. The CPIO and Appellate Authority of Intelligence Bureau are as
under:-
(a) CPIO Shri S. K. Bansal,
Deputy Director,
Intelligence Bureau (MHA),
35, S. P. Marg,
New Delhi
(b) Appellate Authority Shri R. N. Ravi
Joint Director,
Intelligence Bureau (MHA),
35, S. P. Marg,
New Delhi
2. The question is hypothetical in nature and involves an
interpretation of law and the constitution. The CPIO is not2
competent to interpret the law and the constitution. He can only
provide Information which exists in ‘Material Form’ within the
meaning of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Aggrieved, however, Shri Jain moved an appeal before Shri Mohammed
Haleem Khan, dated 8-9-08 with the following plea:
“My appeal is;
1. How can one file RTI with Second Schedule Organization if correct
address is not known and its information is not available in any public
domain or website?
2. Why is CPIO of CIC holding CD and my application primarily meant
for intelligence Bureau despite the fact it contains contradictory
information from Foreign Agencies, AIIMs, MCI, CVC etc?
3. What is CPIO of CIC going to do with information meant for IB
against which information is being sought from Intelligence Bureau?”
Upon this Appellate Authority Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan, Secretary,
CIC in his order of 8-10-08 held as follows:
“I have gone through the RTI application and the reply of the CPIO.
I have also gone through the contents of the first appeal. The main
reasons for the appellant’s dissatisfaction is that even though the
CPIO provided him the details of the CPIO and the appellate
authority of Intelligence Bureau, he has not transferred his RTI
application to the Intelligence Bureau so that the matter could be
dealt further. The appellant was explained that ideally he should
have submitted his application directly to the CPIO of IB. However,
to avoid further correspondence in this matter, the CPIO is directed
to transfer his RTI application along with annexure CD, etc. To the
CPIO of Intelligence Bureau whose address is already available
with the CPIO.”
Consequently, appellant Shri Jain received the following response from
Shri A.K. Mishra, DS (IB) dated 21-10-08:
“Hence, it is regretted that the information sought cannot be
provided.”
This refusal was on the basis of IB, which has received the application on
12-10-08, being an organisation listed in the Second Schedule and therefore not
covered by the Act as per Sec 24(1). Shri Jain then moved an appeal before
Shri R.N. Ravi, JD, IB pleading as follows:
3
“I once again highlight case of corruption in matter of International
immigration on passport no. K 493099 which carried false
information and discrepancies including overwriting indicating
forgery. The person in question has submitted fake and forged
documents in AIIMS for acquiring MD from AIIMS. The orders of
the Honourable Commission highlighting ‘forgery’, falsification of
documents and impersonation’ are also enclosed.”
Is it not corruption? There is not a single document in support of
Date of Birth in passport file with surname name ‘PRASAD’.
Almost every file had two names ranging from AIIMS to Passport.”
Upon this Shri S.S. Sidhu, Jt. Director upheld the response of CPIO by his
order of 12-12-08 on the grounds that the allegation of corruption was not
directed against the IB, as underlined by us below:
“Your above request under the RTI Act has again been carefully
considered but it has been noticed that there is no involvement of
corruption or human rights violations on our part on the issues
raised by you. Hence, it is regretted that the information sought
cannot be provided in view of the IB’s exemption under section 24
(1) and Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005.”
This has brought Shri Jain to his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“If information is made available, it will be public interest.
Denial of information will only flourish health fraud and white
collar crime. People visit this quack with a trust that he is
super specialist while the fact is harsh truth. The list is long to
write in few words. Can infants who are direct sufferers make
any appeal to any law enforcing agency?
Therefore it’s a humble request that information be made
available. Also there is violation of Declaration of Geneva and
International Code of Medical Ethics adopted by World Medical
Association.
A copy of this appeal was also endorsed to the IB which has
acknowledged it through two letters of 19-3-09 and 20-3-09 sent by Shri Arun
Chaudhry, Jt. Director but describing itself as the ‘INTELEGENCE’ Bureau!
4
In a representation of 18-8-09 Shri Jain sought an early hearing. The
appeal was heard on 18-6-2010. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain
Dr. Anju Jain
Respondents
Shri Arvind Deep, Joint Dir, Intelligence Bureau
Shri Jain submitted copies of Visas on Passport Nos. E-4328607, and K-
493099 in the name of Shri Venkateshwara Prasad Vankayalapati, The former
issued in Chennai (TN) and the latter in London (UK). He also submitted a copy
of an e-mail received from the office of Exchange Coordination and Compliance,
Govt of US dated 16-2-2010 in which they have informed Shri Jain as follows:
“We appreciate your providing us with this additional information
since your previous email October 13, 2009. We have been
working with ECFMG officials to investigate this issue of identity
fraud in a J-1 visa program. Thank you again for the efforts you
have undertaken in bringing this to the attention of authorities.’On this basis Shri Jain submitted that he had sought to obtain information
both from the MEA and India’s High Commission in London on the issue of the
Passport by the Indian High Commission in that country; whereas the MEA has
informed him that the passport of this number and name was not part of the MEA
system, the Indian High Commission in UK had failed to provide information. He,
therefore, wished to know from the Immigration Department the record of arrivals
and departures of the concerned individual so as to verify whether or not he was
travelling on a bonafide passport or one that had been fraudulently obtained as
suspected. This will enable him to stop Dr. Vankayalapati from practising, a
practise which he alleged had cost Shri Jain’s 22 day old son’s life and posed a
threat to other children. Dr Vankayalapati had conducted Hit & Trial research in
AIIMS and is at present practicing in his privately owned hospitals Krishna
Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad & Lotus Children Hospital, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh on the pretext of what Shri Jain1 alleges is a fraudulent degree.
Shri Jain submitted that Dr. Vankayalapati is not even a high school graduate but
1
Amended from the original rectifying a typing error
5
has worked as a doctor in India’s premier medical institution from July 1988 to
June 1991 and acquired a degree in Pediatrics there2.
Respondent Shri Arvind D. Jt. Director, IB submitted that Immigration
records are never open to the public nor indeed does the IB respond to a request
from the public. The IB provides information only to Government Department and
acts on behalf of the Government. If, therefore, appellants were to make a case
for enquiry either by the MEA or through prosecution by the local police these
authorities would be free to obtain information from the IB.
DECISION NOTICE
The IB is indeed an organisation listed at serial No.1 of the 2nd Schedule of
the RTI Act 2005 bringing it squarely within Section 24 (1) and, therefore, outside
the purview of the RTI Act except for information pertaining to allegations of
corruption and human rights violation. In this case it is admitted that the request
carries no allegation of corruption within the Intelligence Bureau. Besides
obtaining this information in itself may not help to serve the purpose towards
which Shri Jain had already collected substantial information from different wings
of the Government. In our view this information in itself makes for a strong case
for prosecution by the Delhi Police to whom a complaint has, according to
respondent, indeed already been made in 2007. Whereas, therefore, the
information sought in the present case does not pertain to allegation of corruption
by officials of the Intelligence Bureau, the appeal itself is dismissed. However,
appellant Shri Jain deserves to be commended for having so determinedly
pursued the quest for information under the RTI Act to establish what he
considers a case of medical fraud which could have had grievous consequences
for patients at the AIIMS and now at his privately owned hospitals3, particularly
the most vulnerable, which are the children. For this reason, appellant Shri Jain
is advised to move a representation together with copies of the conclusive
2
Inserted on 26.6.’10 to rectify an error of fact re place of present work of Dr Vankayalapati
3
Inserted on 26.6.’10 to rectify an error of fact re place of present work of Dr Vankayalapati
6
information now obtained before the relevant Division of the Delhi Police, in order
to ensure that any action authorised under the Indian Penal Code is initiated
forthwith.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties including copy to Shri Y.S. Dadwal, Commissioner of Police, Delhi to
whom appellant Shri Jain had been advised to move a representation.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18-6-2010
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
18-6-2010
7