Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01434-SM dated 04.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 20.03.2009
Appellant : Shri Prabhu Sharma
Respondent : DRDO, Ministry of Defence.
The Appellant is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following, are present:-
(i) Shri R.P. Bhat, Scientist (F)
(ii) Shri S.S. Bundela, PIO
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his letter dated 4 April 2008 for a number of
information in respect of compassionate employment provided by that organisation. The CPIO, in
his undated reply informed him that the information could not be provided to him as the Defence
Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was included in the Second Schedule of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act and, therefore, the Act did not apply to their organisation. Against
this denial of information, he approached the first Appellate Authority on 13 May 2008. Instead of
the first Appellate Authority, the CPIO, once again, informed the Appellant that the Right to
Information (RTI) Act did not apply to their organisation and hence they were not required to
supply any information. The Appellant has therefore come before us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, we heard the submissions of both the parties. The Appellant failed to
prove that the information sought had any strong nexus to either any case of human rights
violation or to an act of corruption, the two conditions in which the organisation included in the
Second Schedule would have to provide the information. The Appellant had not alleged any
violation of human rights of any specific individual who had been denied compassionate
employment in the said organisation due to which he was deprived of his livelihood options. Mere
denial of employment by a Public Authority cannot constitute a case of human rights violation by
itself. The Appellant should show that such denial of employment has resulted in his
impoverishment adversely impacting his life. In this case, the Appellant did not even mention any
of this and, therefore, we cannot fault the CPIO for not considering his application for information.
During the hearing also, the Appellant failed to present any convincing argument that the human
right of any specific individual would be violated if information sought is not provided.
5. In view of the above and since the DRDO is an organisation included in the Second
Schedule of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the CPIO was not bound to provide the
information. Hence, we dispose off this appeal without any further orders.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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)
Assistant Registrar