By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JAN 07, 2018: THE issue is - Whether non-disclosure of impractical and indiscriminate information by CPI Officers, is sufficient reason for penal action of Central Information Commission in such matter. NO IS THE ANSWER.

Facts of the case:

The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the total number of personal calls made from the official telephone allotted to Joint CIT, Bokaro, during the month of October, 2016, upon which the CPIO denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that no larger public interest would be served in disclosure of such information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Central Information Commission urging that the response of CPIO towards RTI applications was non reasoned and lacked application of mind. On being queried for not approaching the First Appeal Mechanism, the Complainant narrated his personal experience in several other matters where the FAA had merely concurred with the CPIO without application of mind. The Complainant therefore had prayed for imposition of penalty on CPIO for providing a misleading reply in the matter.

In reply, the CPIO submitted that the information sought by Complainant was an internal matter between the employer and the employee that could not be shared. Contesting the claim, the Complainant submitted that his intention was to expose alleged malpractices in the Public Authority. It was submitted that the said officer misused the office facility and made more than 400 personal calls from the official telephone.

CIC held that,

++ it is observed that u/s 2(j) of RTI Act, the "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and therefore the Public Authority was duty bound under the RTI Act to provide the information to the RTI Applicants which was held by it or was under its control. In this context, the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., has held that RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. In other words, if a public authority has any information in the form of analysed data or abstracts, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. Similarly, the Apex Court in another case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., has observed that an applicant u/s 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law;

++ however, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission, had clarified that: "....the meaning of the term 'information' u/s 2(f) cannot include within its fold answers to the question as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information...." In the same way, the Apex Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, has held that: "....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information which is unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties....";

++ with regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act, the Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., observed that CPIO may genuinely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice u/s 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This is certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities. Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., has held that Section 20 of RTI Act no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. It was also noted in the said decision that imposition of penalty is a discretionary power of CIC, which should not be interfered. Therefore, keeping in view of these judicial pronouncements, no further intervention of Central Information Commission is required in the matter.

(See 2018-TIOL-01-CIC)