CIC: Labelling of information sought as ‘voluminous’ to raise a blanket ban would be counterproductive to the cause of transparency; Ends of justice would be met if statistical data is provided against each of appellant’s query as far as practicable
27 May, 2018Since the captioned appeals have been filed by the same appellant and involve similar queries, they are clubbed for the purpose of adjudication
Information sought and background of the case:
The complainant filed one RTI application dated 21.07.2017 with PIO, Delhi Police. The said RTI application was subsequently transferred to various police stations. The complainant sought following information:-
1. Total number of complaint received by Delhi Police.
2. Total number of complaint with bare reading of complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offence/s,
3. Total numbers of complaints were put through trail/inquiry as per section 154(1) of CrPC.
4. Total number of complaint with bare reading of complaint disclosed commission of non-cognizable offence/s.
5. Number of times informants were referred to Magistrate by inquiry officer/s as per section 155(1) of CrPC.
In response to RTI application, the PIOs, Rohini District, Central District, Add. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North-East Distt., Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police stated that the information asked by the applicant is voluminous and large number of manpower is required to be disproportionally diverted to compile the information. However, the applicant may inspect the available record. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604673
In response to RTI application, the PIO, Dy. Commissioner of Police furnished the information as under:-
1 to 5 – As per report of ACP/HQ (complaint branch)/Crime, Delhi (Principal supplier of the information sought) that the record of complaint Branch is maintained by the name and address of complainant. No record maintained by the under section of complaint and FIR in his branch.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604672
In response to RTI application, the PIO, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance furnished the information as under:-
1. During the said period total 3,71,774 complaints have been found received in this office.
2. & 4 – It does not relate to Vigilance Unit.
5. The requisite information pertaining to Vigilance Unit may please be treated as nil.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant approached the Commission.
CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604671
In response to RTI application, the PIO, Asstt. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance furnished the information as under:-
1. As per report of I/C complaint branch, the requisite information/record has been destroyed upto 2013 vide letter no. 8996-9075/HAR Br/NWD dated 16.05.17. Hence, the requisite information till 2013 cannot be provided to the appellant at this stage. Moreover, total 80554 complaints have been received from 01.01.2014 to 01.06.2017 in this office.
2. to 5- No such type of separate record is maintained in this regard.
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present and heard. It is contention of the appellant that he had filed a single RTI application which could have been easily replied to by the Police Hq without transferring the same to 09 different police districts. However, the CPIO referred the RTI application to 09 different Districts of NCT Delhi which constrained him to filed 9 respective appeals. He states that no information was furnished to him and the respective PIOs have whimsically evaded their duty by replying vaguely. On the other hand, various PIOs appeared before the Commission states that the queries of the appellant were nothing sort of data mining and any attempt to furnish information as per the specific requirement of the appellant would have crippled the department as the information sought is not kept in the form required by the appellant. The respondents argued strenuously to contend that the manner in which the appellant has sought information would require the PIO study each and every complaint and make further statistical fabrication. However, the appellant relies on section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act as interpreted in the case of the The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (04.12.2014-DELHC): MANU/DE/3126/2014 to contend that information has to be furnished in the format as required by the information seeker.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and perusal of records, the Commission partly concurs with the respondents. The import of the queries made by the Appellant is wide and voluminous. However, labelling of information sought as ‘voluminous’ to raise a blanket ban would be counterproductive to the cause of transparency. Ends of justice would be met if statistical data is provided to the appellant against each of his query as far as practicable in the form already maintained with the public authority. The reliance placed by the appellant on section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. and the decision cited is of no relevance as in LPA No. 24/2015, the decision cited by the appellant was reversed by the Division Bench. The CPIO Hqrs. shall access and furnish the numerical data only to the Appellant within 4 weeks of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Navdeep Gupta v. Delhi Police in CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604667 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604668 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604669 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604670 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604671 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604672 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604673 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604703 CIC/DEPOL/C/2017/604948, Date of Decision : 12.03.2018