Respondent denied information under Rule 22(4) of Cinematograph (Certification) Rule, 1983 - CIC referred to Section 22 of RTI Act - CIC: It was the duty of the PIO to either provide the information or deny it under appropriate exemption clause of RTI Act
12 Mar, 2021O R D E R
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 31.10.2018 seeking the following information:
“You are requested to enclose a copy of the following movies
1) Namdar Mukhyamantri Ganpya Gawde (Language: Marathi, Director: Pramod Prabhulkar, Year: 2006)
2) Hyancha Kahi Nem Nahi (Langauge: Marathi, Director: Kedar Shinde, Year: 2007)”
The CPIO vide online reply dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. .11.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought is confidential, hence cannot be given. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.12.2018 upheld the CPIO’s reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite serving the hearing notice. The Respondent reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 13.01.2021. He submitted that the movies that are received by them are viewed by the concerned officials for the purpose of certification and the same after approval has been released in the public domain.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Nagraj Kulkarni, CPIO and Sr. Administrative Officer, CBFC, Mumbai vide letter dated 13.01.2021, wherein he has relied upon Rule 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (4) of Cinematograph (Certification) Rule, 1983 for denial of information under confidential clause. He has further stated that no larger public is served in providing the said information to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has relied upon Rule 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (4) of Cinematograph (Certification) Rule, 1983 for denying the information sought in the instant RTI Application.
Hence, regard shall be had of Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act, which provides that:
“...The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
The implication of this Section has to be read into the present matter, wherein, even if protocol of any other nature subsisted, it was the statutory duty of the CPIO to respond on the RTI Application by either providing the information or denying it under appropriate exemption clause of the RTI Act. However, since the information sought by the Appellant is already in the public domain, the Commission finds no further scope of action in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove
Information Commissioner
Citation: Darshil Kalpesh Mashru v. Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in Second Appeal No. CIC/CBOFC/A/2019/601967, Date of decision: 29.01.2021