Information about Directors & Deans in Raksha Shakti University and Rashtriya Raksha University - CIC: Information available on record has been provided; A lot of information is already available in public domain; No further intervention necessary
22 Jul, 2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2022 seeking information on ten points including the following:-
“1. Details about the name, designation, education, time period/ span of the Directors/ Dean who are appointed as Director/ Dean of the Research and Development OR Research and Publication Division in Raksha Shakti University and Rashtriya Raksha University for the last 11 years.
2. Details/ List of the Research Papers/ Articles published by all the Directors/ Deans of the Research and Development and Research and Publication Division of the University who are appointed for the last 11 years.
3 Details about the highest education with percentage of marks and class obtained by all the School Directors of the University.
4. Details/List of the Research Papers/ Articles published by all the School Directors of the University.
5. Details about the facilities/ technologies for checking the plagiarism in the research papers/ articles/ dissertation provided by the university to the students and staff members (Teaching and Non-teaching) since 2010. Etc.”
The CPIO vide letter dated 23.06.2022 replied as under:-
“1. 1). Dr. Anandkumar Tripathi - 1/c Director, R&D 15/01/2013 to 31/07/2013, 2). Dr.S.L..Vaya Director R&D - 01/08/2013 to 15/03/2017, 3). K.V.Ravikumar - I/c. Director R&D 16/03/2017 to 19/12/2017, 4). Dr.Priyanka Sharma, I/C Director, R&D-20/12/2017 to till date
2. All Directors/Dean has uploaded research details at the RRU website
3. Information may not be provided. As sought information is personal information which is not relates to public interest as per Section 8(j).
4. All School Directors have uploaded research details at the RRU website.
5. Urkund and Tumitin software are available.
6. RSU and RRU Ethics Guidelines, Workshops, FDP Expert sessions and For research Scholar, it is included in Ph.D. Course work.
7. RSU and RRU Ethics guidelines on the website.
8. RSU and RRU Ethics Guidelines, Workshops, FDP Expert sessions on Research ethics and IPR and for research Scholar it is included in Ph.D. Course work since 2010.
9. Sought information cannot be provided as per clause 8(c) and 8(h) of RTI ACT 2005. 10. Sought information cannot be provided as per clause 8(e) and 8(h) of RTI ACT 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2022 held as under:-
“1. I upheld the decision of the CPIO, RRU
2. For the sought information please visit RRU website.
3. The sought information has not relationship to any public activity or interest therefore, the said information cannot be disclosed. Ref: Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
4. As above Sl. No. 2.
5. University has adequate software to check the plagiarism I upheld the decision of the CPIO, RIRU
6. The reasonable efforts have been made by the University from time to time.
7. See the green links for the asked information.
1. http://rru.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RSU Guidelines on the Ethics-of-Research
2. http://rru.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RSU Guidelines on the Ethics-of-Research of 1 compressed.pdf
8. As above Sl No 3. 9. As above Sl No 3. 10. As above Sl No 3.”
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through audio conference
Respondent: Shri Vivan Shah – Legal Advisor and Shri Devendra Varanva – Sr. clerk were heard through video conference.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent public authority since it was not complete, in his understanding. He further stated that he was also aggrieved since the First Appeal was decided on the basis of records and he was not given a chance of personal hearing by the FAA.
Respondent present during hearing reiterated that information held in official records and as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of both the parties, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate reply, from the information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, as per provisions of the RTI Act. On being asked whether he would want another opportunity of his First Appeal being heard personally before the FAA, the Appellant did not desire the same.
The facts of the case reveal that a lot of information sought by the Appellant is already available in public domain, as responded by the Respondent. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the Delhi High Court’s decision dated 27.02.2015 in LPA No. 444/2012 case titled: Prem Lata vs. CIC & Ors. wherein it was held that:
“..21. We, for the reasons following, are of the view that neither can information already suo motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4 be requested for under Section 6 of the Act nor is the CPIO required to reject the said request giving the reason of the information having suo motu been made available on the internet. …………
23..To hold, that notwithstanding the public authority, at a huge expense, having suo motu made information available to the public at large, is also to be burdened with dealing with request for the same information, would amount to a huge waste of resources of the public authorities. Experience of operation of the Act for the last nearly ten years has shown that the officers of the public authorities designated as CPIOs have other duties also and the duty to be discharged by them as CPIO is an additional duty. It cannot also be ignored that dealing with request for information is a time consuming process. If it were to be held that information already made available under Section 4 will have to be again provided under Sections 6 & 7, it will on the one hand not advance the legislative intent in any way and on the other hand may allow misuse of the provisions of the Act for extraneous reasons and allowing harassment of CPIOs by miscreants….”
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Chandresh Parekha v. Internal Security Division, CIC/ISDIV/A/2022/660457; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024