Inspection of file opening register at CIC was denied u/s 8(1)(j) claiming that disclosure would be an invasion of privacy of appellants - FAA provided inspection of file opening register, but refused to take copies of the same - CIC: provide copies
5 Jan, 2015Facts:
F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001344-YA
The appellant sought information regarding copies of decision/order/circular fixing monthly/annual norms for disposal of cases by ICs along with copy of monthly disposal report submitted by each IC from July 2012 till the date of providing the information. Both parties are present. The appellant had filed an RTI application on 18.03.2013 seeking the above information. Dir./Nodal CPIO in his reply provided a copy of the relevant minutes of the meeting on Point 1 & for Point 2, stated that figures received from various registries are consolidated and reported to Commission; thereafter they are placed on the Commission’s website & any copies to that effect are not retained. Jt.Secy./FAA in his order directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant within 5 days. The Nodal CPIO in compliance of FAA’s order sent a letter dt. 11.06.2013 confirming that there is no further information to be provided.
The appellant stated that information on Point (a) has been provided but information provided on Point (b) is false. The appellant stated that as per CPIO’s reply, figures are received from various registries and then the consolidated figures are placed on the website. He stated that till the time the figures are not put up on the website, the same are retained either in electronic form or in writing. Therefore, those figures should have been provided to him. The respondent stated that all information regarding monthly disposal of cases by each IC is available on the website and is maintained electronically.
The appellant further stated that as per CPIO’s reply, it is clear that information is received from different registries and after consolidation, the same is not retained, thus there is a question of destruction of information. He stated that he filed the RTI application on 18.03.2013 assuming that the figures will be available as the same are required to be prepared for the Annual report of the Commission. He further stated that the CPIO’s reply is dated 01.04.2013, on the very next date when the information should have been available in toto either in electronic form or in writing. He alleged that the CPIO despite having information, received from different registries, did not provide it to the appellant and, therefore, the then CPIO should be penalised for giving false information. He stated that he is seeking his information because exaggerated figures regarding disposal of cases have given in the Annual reports by the CIC and the CPIO in his reply has stated that the same is not maintained. The appellant urged that penalty must be imposed on the CPIO for providing incorrect information with mala fide intention.
Facts: F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001405-YA & F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002461-YA
The appellant sought copies of file opening register for different sections/registries for administration, accounts etc., along with list of files for computerization in CIC and details of further development/upgrading/improvement of the computer programmes/network in office use of CIC and CIC website. The appellant informed that file no. CIC/DS/A/2013/002461 is identical as F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001405-YA, with identical RTI application, hence, both cases are being heard & decided together.
The RTI application was filed on 18.03.2013, seeking the above information. Dir./Nodal CPIO in his reply stated that File Opening Register of some of the divisions of the Commission have indicated that files are opened on yearly basis and requested the appellant to specify the year for which information is desired. The Legal Cell, however, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. . The FAA in his order directed the legal cell, on Point 1, to provide an inspection of file opening register; however, denied giving copies of the same as it would indeed be an invasion of privacy. As for Point 3, CPIO was directed to provide complete details of development/upgrading/improvement of computerisation of CIC. The appellant stated that copies of file opening register have been received from all the depts. but not from the Accounts Section. The appellant further stated that the Legal Cell, initially, denied providing the information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. but in compliance of the FAA’s order, provided inspection of file opening register, however, did not allow to take copies of the same. The appellant stated that once inspection is allowed, then copies of the same cannot be denied. The appellant placed reliance on Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and stated that this section provides for the means of proof of public documents which any person has a right to inspect. Under this section, every public officer having custody of a public document, of which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand of a copy of it, on payment of legal fees together with his certificate with date, name and his official title, affixing his official seal, to be called as a certified copy. The appellant also placed reliance on the Commission’s decision in file no. CIC/SG/A/2009/000251 dt. 20.04.2009, wherein the Commission allowed the appellant to take the copies of the files inspected.
The appellant stated that the FAA had denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. but has provided the same in response to another RTI application. He stated that the FAA wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Act and denied information with mala fide intention. The appellant, further, stated that inspection of file opening register of Legal Cell from the year 2005-08 has not been given. He stated that the plea taken by the respondent that the file opening register contains the name of parties and their addresses is wrong as the same is already in public domain, available on the Commission’s website, therefore, this plea is not sustainable. For Points (b) & (c), appellant requested that there is a file of computerization of CIC and the CPIO in compliance of the FAA’s order reiterated his reply which is not proper; he urged that a revised reply be sent for the same. Shri Beck, JS (Law) stated that there is no secrecy as to providing the copies of file opening register of the Accounts Section and the same can be provided to the appellant along with information regarding computerisation of CIC.
Facts: F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001406-YA
The appellant sought information regarding number of appeals/complaints pending registration as on 01.03.2013, appeals/complains pending registration in the registries for more than 30 days, list of orders reserved for more than 30 days, list of documents/record maintained by Dy. Registrars/ICs of each registry for listing, hearing and disposal of cases, month-wise statistics of disposal of cases by each IC from January 2012 to February 2013, etc.
The appellant filed an RTI application on 04.03.2013 seeking the above information. The Nodal CPIO provided a point-wise reply. The FAA in his order directed the Nodal CPIO to provide an inspection of the file in which monthly disposal figures are worked out or maintained. The CPIO, in compliance of the FAA’s order, further clarified the matter and stated that there are no files either physical or electronic in this regard as the same can be accessed in Annual Reports of the Commission.
The appellant alleged that there is a factual error in the FAA’s order and that pendency figures given were wrong. Shri Raghubir Singh contended that the appellant is misquoting the facts and that reply given was correct. The appellant stated that on the day of sending the reply to appellant, if there was even one appeal/complaint pending for registration in the registries, then that be ‘pending’ and the same should have intimated to the appellant. He stated that under these circumstances that the replies from registries that information is not maintained is incorrect. He stated that contradictory replies have been given by the CPIOs on Point (a) as some of the CPIOs have confirmed that no appeal/complaint is pending for registration while some have denied maintaining any such information.
The appellant, further, stated that as per the Commission’s Record Retention Schedule dt. 22.02.2011, the administrative/financial records of the Commission shall be retained in accordance with the Record Retention Schedule for records common to all departments read along with Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure. He stated that the FAA, thus, erred in his order while stating that CIC is an autonomous body and its secretariat manages its record as per the directions of the Commission, whereas it is clearly mentioned in the Schedule that the Central Information Commission is a statutory body created under the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant requested that such figures should be maintained registry wise for better monitoring. The Nodal CPIO stated that now the same is being done and such figures are available on the website of the Commission. He further stated that after the establishment of Central Registry in July, 2013, record of pending daks is maintained and the appeals/complaints registered in the Central Registry are then sent to the respective registries for conducting hearing and disposal. As for Point (c), the appellant, while, placing reliance on the Commission’s order in CIC/WB/A/2009/000761-SM dt. 26.05.2011, stated that a list should be maintained by the registries for cases where hearing has already been conducted and no order has been passed even after 30 days of hearing. Shri V.K. Sharma stated that data for 60 days is being maintained but not 30 days. The appellant stated that it would suffice that a list of cases be provided by registries for cases where hearing has already been conducted and no order has been passed even after 60 days of hearing.
Facts: F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001649-YA
The appellant sought information regarding action taken on various meetings of the Commission, steps taken for establishment of Central Registry and status of proposal for adoption of the Citizen Charter of CIC. The appellant had filed an RTI application on 18.03.2013 seeking the above information. The Nodal CPIO provided a point-wise reply. The FAA in his order recorded that the appellant was interested in knowing only the action taken on various meetings held in the Commission from time to time. The FAA had directed the Nodal CPIO to provide information on Point (a) regarding compliance of matters raised in the meeting of the Commission. The CPIO in compliance of the FAA’s order, provided another reply dt. 10.06.2013 to the appellant. The appellant stated information on Point (a) for the first four dates mentioned is not provided. As for Point (c), the appellant stated that the CPIO had stated in his reply that there is no further status except for the meeting dt. 10.04.2012 and the said meeting was adjourned for a later date. He stated that the status of proposal for adoption of the Citizen Charter of CIC has not been provided to him.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission, in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001344-YA, is of the view that information has been provided to the appellant. Regarding appellant’s contention that there is a question of destruction of information as the same is received from different registries and after consolidation, placed on the website and then not retained, the Commission is of the view that figures regarding monthly disposal submitted by registries of each IC are placed on the website; there is nothing further to be provided. The information sought by the appellant is available in public domain; it cannot be allowed to an information seeker to seek information by twisting the words by stating that he sought information before the same was placed on the website and that the same should have been retained. The Commission does not accept the appellant’s contention that there is any question of destruction of information and the same is rejected. Further, the Commission does not find any mala fide on the part of the CPIO. There is nothing further to be provided to the appellant in this case.
In cases F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001405-YA & F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002461-YA, as for the appellant’s plea that copies of inspected files should have been necessarily provided, the Commission, in the facts and circumstances of this case, finds that the FAA had denied copies of the file opening register u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. , but the respondent has stated that the same can now be provided. Therefore, the Commission directs the Nodal CPIO to provide a revised reply on Point 1 regarding copies of file opening register from the Accounts Section and on Points 2 & 3, to the appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Further, the FAA is cautioned to pass orders after taking due cognizance of the provisions of the RTI Act. In case F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001406-YA, the Commission is of the view that information sought by the appellant regarding number of appeals/complains pending registration, list of documents/record maintained by Dy. Registrars/ICs of each registry for listing, hearing and disposal of cases, month-wise statistics of disposal of cases by each IC from January 2012 to February 2013, etc. is available on the website in consolidated figures, in the form of monthly progress report. As for the list of orders reserved for more than 30 days, the appellant has agreed that the same may be provided to him for the period of 60 days, therefore, the Commission directs the Nodal CPIO to provide information to the appellant on Point (c) reading ’30 days’ as ’60 days’, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. In F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001649-YA, the Commission directs Nodal CPIO to provide information on Point (a) for the first four dates and on Point (c), the current status of proposal for adoption of the Citizen Charter of CIC, to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With these observations, the abovementioned appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri R.K. Jain v. Central Information Commission in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001344-YA F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001405-YA F.No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002461-YA F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001406-YA F.No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001649-YA