CIC: The ‘life or liberty’ provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person & the nonsupply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person
5 Mar, 2015Facts
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 4.7.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points. The CPIO responded on 31.7.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 30.8.2013. In his order dated 17.9.2013, the FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 29.10.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 6.11.2013.
2. The Appellant submitted that he sought the information in the context of his daughter’s admission to a postgraduate degree course and had stated in his RTI application that he was seeking it under the life or liberty proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. However, the information was not provided within the mandated period of 48 hours. He also complained that the public authority has not complied with Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act by publishing all the information stipulated therein, which would obviate the need for the public to seek information on a large number of issues. He stated that incomplete and incorrect information was provided by the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated the replies given by the CPIO.
3. At point No. 1 of the RTI application, the Appellant enquired whether the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) had written letters to the State Agricultural Universities / Veterinary Colleges / Institutions for not granting admission in MVSc course during 2011 – 2012 and 20122013 to students who had passed out from the Mahatma Gandhi Veterinary College (MGVC) and, if so, to provide him copies of the relevant letters. In response, the CPIO provided copies of two letters dated 3.6.2010 and 4.4.2011, vide which VCI had circulated amendment to the First Schedule to the India Veterinary Council Act in respect of two universities, among all the Agricultural / Veterinary Universities having the faculties of Veterinary Sciences. In his second appeal, the Appellant has stated that complete information was not provided. The Respondents stated that they provided two letters which were issued by them regarding amendment to the First Schedule. As per gazette notifications dated 29.4.2010 and 15.3.2011, BVSc & AH qualification granted by Swami Keshwanand Agricultural University Bikaner / RUVAS, Bikaner in respect of college of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner was considered recognized. Hence, BVSc & AH qualification in respect of other veterinary colleges in Rajasthan was not considered recognized. The council vide its letters dated 3.6.2010 and 4.4.2011 circulated the aforesaid notifications. We note that while the above may have provided some information indirectly in response to point No. 1, the query at this point has not been directly answered by the Respondents. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide a response to the specific query at point No. 1, within seven days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. At point No. 2, the Appellant enquired whether VCI had posted the list of derecognised Veterinary Colleges on its website and whether the name of MGVC was included in it. The CPIO stated that the Council uploaded on its website only the list of recognised Veterinary qualification as per First Schedule of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. He further stated that the BVSc and AH qualification in respect of MGVC, Bharatpur affiliated to SKRAU, Bikaner / RUVAS, Bikaner was never recognised and, therefore, the question of its derecognition did not arise. The Appellant stated that incomplete information was provided and the information provided was not true. In this context, he referred to paragraph 20 of the judgment dated 25.7.2014 of the Supreme Court in Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine Vs. Rajasthan State Veterinary Council & Ors., in which the Apex Court stated that on 4.2.2011, the Secretary, Veterinary Council of India recommended for recognition of BVSc and AH course offered by MGVC, Bharatpur and it was informed that Veterinary Council of India recognised the college. The Respondents submitted that what is recognized is the degree of a college. They further submitted that they can only recommend the recognition of the course offered by a college, but the recognition is accorded by the Central Government as per provision of Section 15 (2) of the IVC Act, 1984. On the date of provision of information by the CPIO, the Central Government had at no point of time granted recognition of BVSc and AH qualification in respect of MGVC, Bharatpur affiliated to RUVAS, Bikaner during the year 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Central Government issued notification recognising its BVSc and AH qualification for a specific period in keeping with paragraph 49 of the above Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, their response to point No. 2 was correct. In the above context, we note that the Supreme Court also observed the following in paragraph 20 of the judgment: “The Secretary, Veterinary Council of India on 29th March, 2011 informed the Registrar, Rajasthan State Veterinary Council that though the Council had recommended the Central Government for recognition of the qualification in respect of Mahatma Gandhi Veterinary College, Bharatpur, and the notification including the qualifications in respect of two Colleges i.e. Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur and Mahatma Gandhi Veterinary College, Bharatpur in the First Schedule was yet to be issued by the Central Government.” Further, in paragraph 43 of the same judgment, the Court also observed as follows: “Therefore, on careful consideration of the provisions discussed above we hold that it is mandatory for a “Veterinary College” imparting teaching of B.V.Sc and A.H. Course to get recognition by the Central Government under First Schedule to the Indian Veterinary Council Act,1984.” It is, therefore, clear that a recommendation of VCI for recognition did not amount to actual recognition, till it was granted by the Central Government. Therefore, we see no ground to interfere with the response of the Respondents to point No. 2.
5. In point No. 3, the Appellant enquired as to when was MGVC, Bharatpur, affiliated to RAJUVAS, Bikaner recognised by VCI and when it was derecognised. The CPIO stated that affiliation to Veterinary Colleges was not granted by VCI and that the information may be obtained from the concerned university. The Appellant maintains that correct information was not provided. However, we note that in his response to point No. 2, the CPIO had categorically stated that the BVSc and AH qualification in respect of MGVC, Bharatpur, affiliated to SKRAU, Bikaner/ RUVAS, Bikaner was never recognised and, therefore, question of its derecognition did not arise. This answered point No. 3 of the RTI application.
6. Point No. 4 sought information on whether recognition of BVSc degree holder with VCI was essential for taking admission in MVSc programme. In response, the CPIO referred to the provisions of Section 46 of the IVC Act, as per which registration is granted only to those persons who hold recognised veterinary qualification. He also referred to some other provisions of the same Act. The Respondents submitted during the hearing that VCI does not deal with postgraduate degrees and this work is handled by the ICAR. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to forward the query at point No. 4 to the concerned CPIO of the ICAR within five days of the receipt of this order. The CPIO, ICAR is directed to provide to the Appellant such information in response to the specific query in this point, as may be available on the records of the ICAR, within ten days of his receiving the above point from the CPIO of VCI, under intimation to the Commission.
7. The Appellant also pleaded for action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing him incomplete / misleading information. We note that the main issue underlying the queries in the RTI application was recognition to the BVSc and AH degree of MGVCan issue which was in dispute and was resolved by the Supreme Court judgment dated 25.7.2014. As stated above, we see no ground to interfere with the response of VCI to point No. 2 of the RTI application concerning this issue. We also see no ground to establish any deliberate attempt on the part of the CPIO to provide incomplete / misleading information. Therefore, action against the CPIO under Section 20 is not warranted.
8. Regarding the Appellant’s plea concerning submission of his application under the life or liberty proviso, we note the following observation made by the Commission in its order No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000814/18825 dated 9.5.2012:
“Proviso of Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: states that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty eight hours of the receipt of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person has to be carefully scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon. The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within fortyeight hours. A broad interpretation of ‘life or liberty’ would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving ‘life or liberty’ so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved. The life or liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the nonsupply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: . The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is well aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to life or liberty can be proven.”
Taking the above into account, the RTI application dated 4.7.2013 did not attract the life or liberty proviso under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act.
9. Before concluding this order, we would remind the public authority of its obligation under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to put out in public domain the information mentioned therein, if not already done.
10. With the directions and observations above, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta v. Veterinary Council of India in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000091