CIC: Section 3 gives the right to information only to the citizens of India, but that does not mean that a Public Authority can go on insisting on the proof of citizenship & use it as a method of denying information; Show cause notice issued for penalty
27 Dec, 2014The appellant has come late and briefed the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Dr.R.K.Chopra, Medical Officer/PIO, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, GNCTD, Delhi.
2. The appellant has filed the above five appeals against the same public authority and hence they are heard together today.
FACTS
3. In the First Case [CIC/DS/A/2013/001386SA], the appellant through his RTI dated 28.12.2012, is seeking to know the details of purchases of drugs, chemicals etc. for the financial years from 2009 to 2012. The PIO replied on 8.2.2013 requesting the appellant to prove that he is the citizen of India. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided, the appellant preferred First appeal. FAA by his order dated 1152013 directed the PIO to get clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding the citizenship of the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the respondent authority in denying the required information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
4. In the Second Case [CIC/DS/A/2013/001390SA], the appellant through his RTI dated 21112012, is seeking to know the details of salary slip, the day he was posted etc of one employee Devender. The PIO replied on 822013 requesting the appellant to prove that he is the citizen of India. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided the appellant preferred First appeal. FAA by his order dated 1152013 directed the PIO to get clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding the citizenship of the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the respondent authority in denying the required information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
5. In the Third Case [CIC/DS/A/2013/001392SA], the appellant through his RTI dated 16012012, his seeking to know details of rules under which the respondent can demand the citizen proof of the RTI applicant. The PIO replied on 822013 requesting the appellant to prove that he is the citizen of India. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided the appellant preferred First appeal. FAA by his order dated 1152013 directed the PIO to get clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding the citizenship of the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the respondent authority in denying the required information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
6. In the Fourth Case [CIC/DS/A/2013/001393SA], the appellant through his RTI dated 28122012, his seeking to know details of the security staff deployed in the respondent hospital. The PIO replied on 822013 requesting the appellant to prove that he is the citizen of India. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided the appellant preferred First appeal. FAA by his order dated 1152013 directed the PIO to get clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding the citizenship of the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the respondent authority in denying the required information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
7. In the Fifth Case [CIC/DS/A/2013/001394SA], the appellant through his RTI dated 19112012, his seeking to know details of MS Rajpal singh i.e his salary slip, his property returns etc. The PIO replied on 822013 requesting the appellant to prove that he is the citizen of India. Being unsatisfied with the reply provided the appellant preferred First appeal. FAA by his order dated 1152013 directed the PIO to get clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding the citizenship of the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply of the respondent authority in denying the required information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
8. Before going into the issue of whether the stand of the Public Authority to seek proof of Citizenship of the appellant inspite of him submitting the relevant proof, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions and case law with respect to it. Section 3 of RTI Act, 2005 deals with proof of Citizenship which states as under:
Section 3 Right to Information Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. In Hira Lal vs. Estate Office [CIC/WB/C/2006/00183] dated 6.9.2006, the Commission dealt with the question whereby the request of the appellant for information was rejected on the ground of the appellant signature not tallying with the one which was available in the respondent authority official record. The Commission in that case observed that: “If of course, there is suspicion of possible fraud through forged signatures, which is a criminal offence the information cannot be supplied unless that suspicion is allayed. In that case it would be open to the CPIO to seek that an applicant establishes his or her identity before the information is supplied. It is hoped, because there has been no evidence to the contrary, that in this case the application was not rejected only as a matter of routine, but precise scrutiny before rejection of an application under the RTI will be well advised.
9. The Commission in its subsequent decision, has been of the view that proof of Indian Citizenship could be asked for in cases where there is reasonable doubt to citizenship of an applicant. Thus, in the Commission’s decision in Chanderkant Jamnadas Karira vs. Vice President’s Secretariat [CIC/WB/C/2009/900352] dt.10.1.2010,whereby a format for RTI application, prescribed by the Vice President’s Secretariat, which called for information such as gender, date of birth, full name of father and mother, proof of residence etc. Commission had observed that:
“A bare minimum requirement for a citizen who desires to obtain any information under this Act is that he shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or in Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. It is clear therefore, that asking the applicants to declare any form of allegiance is ultra vires. For this reason it is recommended that it is only in cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to the citizenship of the applicant that the public authority may seek proof of citizenship, which presumably is the objective of the above clause.”
10. Further in, Bhaskar Jyoti Gogoi Vs. Oil India Ltd [CIC/MA/C/2009/00246], the commission had observed that:
“A Public Authority is expected to disclose the information relating to the outcome of the process of selection of staff. In view of this, the denial of information merely on the ground that the appellant has not submitted his citizenship proof, is unacceptable.”
In A.N. Prasad Vs. Indian Army [CIC/SM/C/2009/000405/LS], the Commission observed that:
“No doubt, information can be sought only by an Indian citizen under section 3 of the RTI Act. It has, however, come to the notice of the Commission that apart from the CPIOs of the Armed Forces, CPIOs of certain civil organizations also are insisting on proof of citizenship. It is to be noted in the three decisions of the Commission cited above, there is concensus that proof of citizenship is not required to be given by the information seekers. The Meghalaya State Information Commission has also taken the same line on the ground that seeking this proof would be overstretching the limits of law. However, it is to be noted that the Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing in as much as, notwithstanding the fact that sensitive information has been barred from disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, yet the residual information, at times, may be sensitive from security angle and this concern cannot be totally disregarded. It is trite that under this Act, disclosure is the rule and nondisclosure, an exception. We cannot lose sight of the fact that certain information seekers living in rural areas may not have any proof of their identity in any of the forms enumerated in para 4(III) of the Commissions proceedings dated 2.2.2010 extracted above, let alone proof of citizenship. It may also be that some of them have proof in one of the forms referred to above but furnishing of such proof before the CPIOs may be cumbersome and may involve costs and delays. To deprive such individuals of their statutory rights would not be just, fair and equitable. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the concerns of the Armed Forces, we are of the opinion that the proof of citizenship is not required from an information seeker as a matter of principle. …..”
11. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1078710788 OF 2011] has observed that:
“It is quite interesting to note that even though under Section 3 of the Act right of all citizens, to receive information, is statutorily recognized but Section 6 gives the said right to any person. “
12. In Fruit and Merchant Union vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. [C.W.P. 4787 of 2011 (O&M)], the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had given the following direction:
“Further, in all Complaints before the PIO, the appeal before the First Appellate Authority or any proceedings before the Commission, it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application. It is for the reason that in some cases, it has come to the notice of this court that the applicants were not identifiable. It would ensure that only the genuine persons file application. “
In the present case before the Commission, the appellant had given his proof of identity which include his ID showing that he is an accredited journalist, functioning as Chief Editor of ‘Aaj Ka Sandesh” TV News and “Hum Aur AAP” Hindi Daily, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi and also he had furnished an Affidavit stating that he is Citizen of India.
13. The Commission is surprised at the unreasonable attitude of the Public Authority in denying the information to the appellant, on the pretext of his notproving his citizenship, in spite of his submitting the documents. FAA’s attitude, in ordering the PIO to seek clarification on this document from the Ministry of Home Affairs, reflects a determination to deny the information with adamant nature of insisting on proof of citizenship without explaining the reason for suspicion, which amounts to blatant violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The attitude of the respondents created circumstances for the Commission to be concerned about the motive of denial as submitted by the appellant, that all officers of the Public Authority were handinglove in hiding their corrupt activities. He was even threatened by the respondent authority for questioning their corrupt activities, through his RTI applications.
14. Section 3 of the RTI Act has given the right to information only to the citizens of India, but that does not mean that a Public Authority can go on insisting on the proof of citizenship and use this as a method of denying the information The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent/PIO to give the information sought by the appellant in all his five RTI applications following the relevant provisions of RTI Act, if personal information of third party is involved, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and also directs the following officers of the Public Authority to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed in all the five cases, separately in each case, for misusing their authority in denying the information to the appellant and unreasonably demanding the proof of the citizenship of the appellant without any basis :
1. Dr. Raj Pal, Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital
2. Dr.B.P.Parwal, PIO/DMS(M), GTB Hospital
3. Dr.Bharat Sagar, APIO, GTB, Hospital
4. Dr.R.K.Chopra, Medical Officer/PIO, GTB Hospital
The explanations of the above officers should reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Narottam Sharma v. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital GNCTD, Delhi in (1) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001386SA (2) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001390SA (3) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001392SA (4) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001393SA(5) File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001394SA