CIC agreed with the PIO and held that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act
4 Jun, 2021Information Sought:
The appellant has made a reference to the Court Case SLP(C) No. 35989-35990 of 2016/Civil Appeal No.4722-4724 of 2017, where Shri Tapan Kumar Barik is one of the parties of the case. In the said context, he has sought the following information:
- Provide the reasons and circumstance under which the false information i.e. conditional undertaking dated 30/03/2001, for appearing in the interview for promotion of Shri Tapan Kumar Barik has been submitted before Hon’ble Courts of Law (upto Hon'ble Supreme Court) from time to time. Provide the name of the person who is responsible for the same.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not provided the information by quoting Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of hearing notice on 04.03.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED738861879IN.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 10.12.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/s 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA and concludes that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to quote an observation made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that
“...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption”
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
“...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act”
In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. This is not so in this case nor the appellant was himself present to prove otherwise.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies. Decision: In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Kishore Mohan Sahu v. Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) in File no.: - CIC/DRADO/A/2019/117387, Date of Decision: 17/03/2021