Complaint u/s 18 for not providing certified copy of SC & ST Order (Amendment) Bill, 1976 (in Hindi and English both) - PIO: Hindi copy is not available in Legislative-I Section; English copy provided - CIC: No malafide denial of information

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“Please provide information under RTI act 2005 as certified copy of bill (in Hindi and English both) tabled/passed by parliament for SC ST amendment Act 1976 under RTI act 2005.”

The CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2024 replied as under:-

“RTI Cell may please refer the RTI Application vide no. LEGIS/R/T/24/00571 dated 09.08.2024 of Shri Santosh Dhangar seeking certified copy of bill (in Hindi and English both) tabled/passed by the Parliament regarding the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.

2. In this regard, it is to state the information sought by the applicant relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 108 of 1976) is administratively concerned with Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the said Act was piloted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the said Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha. Therefore, the relevant information may be available with the said Ministries and the Lok Sabha Secretariat. However, on the basis of the records available in Legislative -1 Section of this Department, a copy of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Bill, 1976 (in English) as passed by both House of Parliament is enclosed herewith to be provided to the applicant. Further, Hindi copy of said Bill is not available in Legislative-I Section of this Department.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Present

Respondent: Shri P.C. Meena, Director (A)

The Submissions were heard.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.

Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission, therefore, is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."

xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence, no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri. Santosh Dhangar v. Legislative Department, CIC/LEGIS/C/2024/641504; Date of Decision: 28.03.2025