CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00729 dated 18-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Prem Singh
Respondent: Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
FACTS
By an application of 5-9-06 received in the DoPT on 13-9-06 Shri Prem
Singh of Hqrs. of 14 Border Road Task Force applied to the CPIO, DoPT
seeking the following information:
(a) Certified true copy of policy/ guidelines framed by the Govt.
of India for acceding to the eligibility/ criteria of any Central
Organization as security or intelligence organization for the
purpose of inclusion in the second schedule to the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
(b) Certified true copy of noting sheet of the Department of Pers
and Trg where it has been decided by the competent
authority that the Border Roads Development Board (BRDB)
should be included in the second schedule to the RTI Act,
2005.
(c) Reasons for not including the Border Roads Development
Board (BRDB) in the second schedule to RTI Bill, 2005
which was drafted by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions and introduced in the both houses
of Parliament for debate.
(d) Provide the copy of memorandum of Union Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions issued to all the
Ministries/ Department for submitting their report to include
the Department/ Office under second schedule of RTI Bill,
2005 and also provide the copy of report submitted by BRDB
for inclusion in second schedule of the RTI Bill 2005.
(e) Reason for not including the Border Roads Development
Board (BRDB) in the schedule to the Freedom of Information
Act, 2002 which was remain in force for near about two years
and six months i.e. from 06th Jan 2003 to 14th June 2005.”
To this he received a response on 9-10-06 from CPIO, Shri P.K. Mishra,
US, DoPT stating as follows:
1
“I am to inform you that the Border Roads Development Board
(BRDB) has been included in the second Schedule to the Right
to Information Act, 2005 vide this Department’s Notification No.
34012/12(S)/2005- Estt. (B) dated 28th September 2005.
Section 24 of the Act provides that provisions of the Act shall not
apply to the Intelligence and security organizations specified in
the second schedule or any information furnished by such
organizations to the Central Government. However, the
information pertaining to allegations or corruption and human
rights violations shall not be excluded under Section 24.”
Not satisfied with this response Shri Prem Singh moved his first appeal
before Shri K.G. Verma, DS, DoPT on 20-12-06 pleading that the information
sought was not under the category of classified record or documents nor
exempted from the disclosure u/s 8 (1) and should therefore, be provided. On
not receiving a response Shri Prem Singh moved second appeal before us
with the following prayer:
(a) The entire matter of including BRDB in the second schedule
of RTI Act may please be investigated to justify the
correctness of the same under the provision of RTI Act and
policy guidelines framed by parliament/ govt. of India to
include other organization and intelligence and security
organization in the second schedule through notification at
later stage.
(b) Also direct Shri P. K. Mishra, PIO Dep’t of Pers and New
Delhi-01 to provide the requested information to the applicant
held by him.
(c) Also direct Shri P. K. Mishra, PIO DOPT to provide the
above information free of cost as the same has not been
provided within the stipulated time period.
(d) Pass such further order or orders as Hon’ble commission
may deemed fit and proper for protection of rights of any
applicants seeking information under RTI Act in DOPT.
(e) Impose deterrent penalty on defaulter as provided in the act
so that there is complete compliance of the provisions of the
Act within DOPT.
(f) Allow due cost and compensation to applicant as provided in
the Act.”
This was followed by a request of 1-7-08 from appellant Shri Prem
Singh that he may be exempted from appearance in the hearing. We
2
subsequently received a response to our appeal notice from Ms. Anuradha S.
Chagti, OSD (RTI) DoPT through her letter of 14-7-08 wherein she submits as
follows:
1. “Section 24 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 empowers Govt. to
carry out amendments in the Second Schedule to the Act.
The decision to this effect is taken after examining the
request for such inclusion received from an organization.
Government is also empowered to review the Schedule
under the section. Recently, notification dated 28.3.2008
has been issued incorporating 2 organisation and
omitting 3 organisations from the Schedule. A copy of
the notification is attached. In case of NRDB, Ministry of
Defence had requested for exemption of the organization
which was examined in consultation with Ministry of
Home Affairs. Copies of both the communications are
enclosed. Approval of the competent authority is taken
for making such amendment and the notification issued is
also laid on the Table of both the Houses of the
Parliament. NRDB has been included in the Second
Schedule from the security point of view. Copies of the
constitution of the organization (as per information in its
website) are enclosed. Government has under the power
vested under Section 24 included the organization after
considering all aspects.
2. Reply to the application dated 5th September 2006 was
furnished by the then CPIO vide letter of even number
dated October 9, 2006 as per the provisions of the RTI
Act, 2005. However, the appeal dated 20.12.2006 does
not seem to have been received in this Department.”
A copy of this response together with its enclosures has also been
endorsed to appellant Shri Prem Singh.
The appeal was heard on 17-7-08. The following are present:
Respondent
Ms Anuradha S. Chagti, OSD (RTI)
Shri D. C. Sharma, SO (IR)We have noted the request of 1-7-08 from appellant Shri Prem Singh
that he be exempted from appearance in the hearingDECISION NOTICE
Having heard respondents and perused the record we find that the
response of CPIO is not in keeping with the law. Under Section 7 sub-
3
section (9) of the RTI Act “an information shall ordinarily be provided in the
form in which it is sought.”
In this case CPIO Shri P. K. Mishra in his initial response has simply
provided a bald statement to appellant without caring to respond point wise.
Where copies of documents have been sought it has not been clarified
whether such documents are held by the public authority or not. Although this
could have been rectified in the first appeal, that appeal does not seem to
have been received in the Ministry. At any rate a detailed response has now
been provided through her letter of 14.7.2008 submitted by OSD, RTI Ms
Anuradha S. Chagti in response to our appeal notice. This answers all the
questions raised by the appellant in his original application, even though it
does not address each question point wise, as it should have done.
The request of appellant now having been met, this appeal may be
considered disposed of.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
17-7-2008
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
17-7-2008
4