CIC: The mere pendency of the case relating to the issue at hand in the court is not reason enough to deny information - CIC: The copies of responses to which the appellant had sought from the RBI had already been given by the DFS
18 May, 2016Date of Decision : March 4, 2016
ORDER
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002080
1. Vide his RTI application dated 26.4.2015, Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, the appellant, sought photocopy of RBI letters dated 31.7.2013 in the matter of allowances and perks made admissible to the employees/officers from time to time and the status of court case pending in the Hon’ble High Court and the copy of letter dated 27.8.2013 in the matter of allowances and perquisites of working employees/ officers regarding pension updation.
2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.5.2015, denied information taking exemption u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; as the correspondence was still going on with the Government of India and a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and held that the correspondence with the Government of India was held in fiduciary capacity. In his second appeal, the appellant stated that the Government of India had provided photocopies of letters and notings recorded in connection with the RBI pension regulations in the matters relating to information sought by him and the RBI had also earlier provided copies of letters and file notings which had already been filed by him with his writ petition. The RBI cannot treat the information held by it in fiduciary capacity while the Government of India does not treat the same in fiduciary in nature.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance had given him the copies of correspondence received from the RBI and in fact he had enclosed the copies of their letters with his applications made to the RBI and wanted the copies of RBI’s response to the DFS. The respondents had not justified the denial of information to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had filed more than 450 applications. They had provided him responses to more than one thousand queries and provided 3000 pages of information. They had taken exemption only on the pension issue. On the Commission questioning the reason for their seeking exemption while the DFS had provided the copies of correspondence with the RBI, the respondents stated that there are already cases on the same issue going on in Delhi and Mumbai High Courts. Providing any information to the appellant may give rise to more cases.
4. The Commission observes that mere pendency of the case relating to the issue at hand in the court is not reason enough to deny information. In this connection, section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as follows:
“(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;”
5. The respondents also could not support their contention regarding the exemption sought by them regarding holding the information in fiduciary capacity. The Commission finds that the DFS had already given copies of their letters, the copies of responses to which the appellant had sought from the RBI. There appears to be no reason for the RBI to deny information to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide copies of letters dated 31.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002079
1. Vide his RTI application dated 24.4.2015, the appellant sought certified copy of representation dated 30.9.2014 sent by RBI Retirees from Chennai, addressed to Central Board of RBI/Governor and its response. The CPIO denied information as it was held by the RBI in fiduciary capacity and also as the matter was sub-judice. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on similar grounds as in the above case.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated his request for being provided with the copies of the representations of RBI retirees from Chennai and the response thereof. The respondents stated that the copy of representation and response in question was held by them in fiduciary capacity and the appellant was not a party to that representation. Therefore, the copies of these two documents could not be provided to him.
3. On hearing both the parties, the Commission finds that the copies of documents sought by the appellant were held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity and upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001748, 1746 and 2129
1. Vide his RTI applications dated 27.4.2015, 28.4.2015 and 6.5.2015, the appellant sought certified photocopies of documents/file notings, agenda note, memorandum to the committee of central board or any other papers relating to RBI Regulations, 1990 in connection with the amendments published in the official gazette on 12.1.2013 which indicated whether any exceptions or modifications were made under regulation 5 of RBI Regulations, 1990 while proposing the amendments and copy of RBI letter no. HRMD.CO.271/21/01/2012/13 dated 13.7.2012 and response of the RBI to DFS letter dated 11.9.2012. In the last case mentioned above, the appellant sought certified copies of the same letter (dated 13.7.2012) along with comparative statement of the proposed amendments sent by RBI to the Government of India and copy of draft RBI Staff Regulations as sought by Government of India.
2. The CPIO denied information in both the cases as the matter was being defended in the High Court and information was held by them in fiduciary capacity. The FAA also held that the documents, file notings, agenda notes, memorandum to the committee of the Central Board and the correspondence with the Government of India were held in fiduciary capacity and, therefore, exempt u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; . The appellant approached the Commission stating that the information could not be withheld as it involved public interest.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated his request for information. The respondents stated that the regulation 5 was a general regulation and it did not mean that any exceptions and modifications were necessarily made. The pension regulations as approved by the Government of India had been published and implemented.
4. The Commission finds that the responses given by the CPIO or the FAA do not indicate the position explained by the respondents during the hearing. Instead the same response as had been given in all the RTI applications. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI applications and give a speaking and reasoned order in the matter within three weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeals are disposed of.
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001844, 1849
1. Vide his RTI applications dated 30.4.2015 and 5.5.2015, the appellant sought certified photocopies of RBI letter in response to the Government of India letter dated 16.8.2013 and certified copy of RBI’s letter, file notings recorded by the Governor/HRMD, CO, RBI Mumbai which show action taken as desired through DO letter dated 25.11.2013. The CPIO intimated him that he will be provided access to the relevant documents subject to exemptions u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and take copies of the same on paying the charges due. The FAA upheld the CPIO decision. The appellant approached the Commission on the same grounds as mentioned in the earlier cases.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had enclosed the letters the copies, response to which he had sought along with relevant file notings but the respondents had not provided him the same. The appellant had not specified any particular letter but left it to the respondent authority to locate the note sheets and the letters which indicated action taken by the RBI in the light of the letters sent by DFS. The respondents stated that it was extremely difficult for them to locate the notings and letters sought for the by the appellant, therefore, they had asked him to come and see the record and had assured to provide copies on payment of charges due subject to the exemptions provided u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act. The FAA had also upheld the decision of the CPIO in this matter.
3. The Commission observes that the appellant vide his RTI applications dated 30.4.2015 and 5.5.2015 sought certified copies of file notings and action taken by RBI in response to the Ministry of Finance, DFS, New Delhi letter dated 16.8.2013 and D.O. letter dated 25.11.2013 and the respondent CPIO provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of relevant documents on the grounds that the information sought was spread over different files. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and directs the CPIO to provide an opportunity for inspection of the relevant records to the appellant or his authorized representative on a mutually convenient date and time within six weeks of receipt of this order and provide copies of the disclosable documents permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, identified by the appellant after inspection of the records, free of cost. The appeals are disposed of.
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001747, 1850 and 1851
1. Vide his RTI applications dated 29.4.2015, 4.5.2015 and 1.5.2015, the appellant sought certified copy of RBI letter dated 22.5.2007 regarding framing of staff regulations and certified copy of RBI letter dated 5.11.2013 regarding allowances, perquisites of workmen/employees/ officers of the bank along with certified photocopy of RBI letter along with information furnished to the Government of India as mentioned in para 2 of Government of India’s letter dated 21.11.2013 and certified photocopy of RBI letter dated 27.8.2013 and certified photocopy of RBI letter along with information as mentioned in para 4 of the letter dated 13.9.2013 of DFS.
2. The CPIO held that the information sought by the appellant was spread over various files, therefore, the appellant could visit their office and see the record, take copies subject to the relevant provisions of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he should have not been asked to come and see the record as the record should be readily available with the CPIO. The respondents stated that providing copies of the letter/information sought by the appellant would mean looking through voluminous record, therefore, they had requested the appellant to come and see the record and take copies.
4. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought copies of RBI letters dated 22.5.2007, 5.11.2013 and 27.8.2013 which is very specific, the CPIO, therefore can provide the copies of these letters without much difficulty. As far as the appellant quoting a particular para of GoI letter dated 21.11.2013 (case no. 1850) and 13.9.2013 (case no. 1851) respectively were concerned, the information sought is not specific, therefore, the Commission upholds the decision of the FAA asking the appellant to come and see the record relating to this issue while directing the CPIO to provide photocopies of above two letters of RBI within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeals are disposed of.
No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002110 and 2111
1. Vide his RTI applications dated 3.5.2015 and 2.5.2015, the appellant sought certified photocopy of the RBI’s email dated 3.10.2013 and certified photocopy of RBI letter dated 3.12.2013 and copy of email dated 1.8.2013. The CPIO asked the appellant to come and see the record and take copies subject to the exemptions u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. In the first case, the FAA held that the appellant had sought certified copy of single email dated 3.10.2013 and sought to know the action taken pertaining to the DFS DO letter dated 18.10.2013, the CPIO should revisit the queries and provide the information subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the second case also, the FAA held that the appellant had sought certified copy of single letter dated 3.12.2013 and certified copy of email dated 1.8.2013 and the information sent to GoI in response to their letter and directed the CPIO to revisit the queries and provide the information subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No compliance or otherwise on the part of the CPIO is available on record. In his second appeal, the appellant stated that the information sought by him was contained in one file only but even if it was contained in more than one file, the CPIO should have provided it to him. He also added that the CPIO had changed his decision after the FAA’s decision.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated his position as stated in his second appeal. The respondents, when questioned about FAA’s decision, stated that they could not provide the information to him as it was held by them in fiduciary capacity and also in view of the continuance of the court case in the matter.
3. The CPIO’s response with reference to the FAA’s order was not placed on record either by the respondents or by the appellant. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes a certain lack of the application of mind on the part of the CPIO as he had modified his decision without giving any reasoned order. It is also interesting to note that in the cases where the FAA directed the CPIO to provide the copy of the letter asked for, the CPIO changed his decision and denied information u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and also in view of the pendency of the court case and retained the decision where inspection of documents was allowed. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the photocopies of the relevant emails and letters within three weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeals are disposed of.
4. The respondents brought it to the notice of the Commission that the appellant had been making a large number of RTI applications on same subject and they had been duly replying to the RTI applications and first appeals regularly. They mentioned that they had dealt with as many as 450 RTI applications. Looking to the appeals heard, the Commission observes that the appellant has sought copies of a number of letters of RBI through various RTI applications. The appellant could, perhaps, have sought the same information by submitting one or two RTI applications also as most of his RTI applications are in quick succession of one another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that “...The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties”.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Hari Prasad Sharma v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001746 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001747 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001748 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001844 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001849 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001850 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/001851 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002079 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002080 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002110 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002111 No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002129