Information regarding medical investigations and Glucose Tolerance Test conducted on the appellant - information denied as ITBP included in Schedule II - CIC: information exempt as does not pertain to corruption or violation of human rights
Information regarding medical investigations and Glucose Tolerance Test conducted on the appellant - information denied as the organisation was included in Schedule II of the RTI Act - CIC: information sought does not pertains to violation of Human Rights and allegation of corruption and therefore, does not fall under proviso (1) to section 24 of the RTI Act
1. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 25.7.2012 sought information regarding the complete medical papers/investigations of Review of annual Medical Examination and conducting of Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT) on him. The appellant specifically ask 8 querries in his RTI application in respect of the said matter.
2. CPIOShri V.K Singh, DIG (Medical) & SO to ADG (Medical), replied to the appellant vide letter no: 1/2006/ADG (Med.)/CAPFs/RTI/2012/1440 dated 26.7.2012 that
“by virtue of section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 read with schedule II, RTI Act is not applicable for intelligence and security organizations as specified in the Second Schedule. Since all the Central Armed Police Forces i.e. BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, SSB including NSG and Assam Rifles are exempted in said Schedule, hence the information sought by the appellant does not comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005”.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of CPIO, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 11.9.2012 before the FAADr. K.K Mukherjee, IG (Medical). The FAA referred the matter to the Commission vide U.O no: V31012/ 3/ADG (Med.)/RTI/20121879 dated 21.09.2012. The CPIO received a reply from the Commission in reference to their U.O dated 21.09.2012 vide Commission letter dated 4.12.2012 wherein guidelines issued to public authorities exempted as specified in Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 was forwarded and it was also instructed by the Commission to take appropriate action accordingly in the matter. On receiving of reply the FAA disposed off the appeal of the appellant vide order no:V31012/ 3/ADG(Med.)/RTI/20122490 dated 5.12.2012 and held that
“The CPIOADG (Med.) office has acted correctly while disposing the application, since all the intelligence and security agencies are specifically exempted u/s 24 read with Schedule II, except in cases information as defined in proviso of section 24 (1) and the information sought by the appellant does not fall under the said category neither he pleaded so in his appeal, hence the said information cannot be provided to him. If on the such pleadings the appeal is entertained, the basic object of the exemption given to the intelligence and security agencies u/s 24 will be defeated and everybody will file the appeal against the CPIO, without any valid reason, whenever his application get rejected. Hence, appeal is rejected being devoid of merit.”
4. During the pendency of First Appeal before the FAA, the Appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission wherein appellant states that the information has not been provided by the CPIO and FAA and prayed that the information sought must be provided to him because the matter relates to the life and liberty of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Commission observes that the information sought in the RTI application is regarding the complete medical papers/investigations of Review of annual Medical Examination and conduct of Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT) on the appellant. It is to be noted that the Respondent is an exempted organization listed under Schedule II of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is not amenable to any provisions contained in the RTI Act, 2005 by virtue of section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the information sought by the Appellant does not pertains to violation of Human Rights and allegation of corruption and therefore, does not fall under proviso (1) to section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: S.S Sandhu v. Indo Tibetan Border Police in Case No: CIC/SS/A/2012/003455