Information regarding pension payment to the complainant & certain deductions made - CIC: It does not fall within the scope of the “life or liberty” proviso to Section 7 (1) - Compensation not awarded as no loss or detriment established by the complainant
27 Jul, 2016Hearing on 1.4.2016
These files contain complaints in respect of the RTI applications dated 17.8.2015 and 8.10.2015 filed by the Complainant, regarding information in respect of his pension payments and certain deductions being made from the same. No reply of the CPIO has been enclosed with the complaint registered on File No. 226. However, the Complainant has enclosed the CPIO’s reply dated 9.11.2015 with the complaint registered on File No. 454, with which the Complainant is not satisfied. In both the cases, he has prayed for action against the CPIO under Section 20 (1) and 20 (2) and payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/ to him in terms of Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.
2. No one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. We take a serious note of their absence during the proceedings. The representative of the Complainant stated that the information was not provided to the Complainant within forty eight hours under the ‘Life or Liberty’ proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the Complainant is not being paid the pension due to him and large deductions have been made from the same, without giving him any advance notice, on the ground that the same are being made as per the directive of the office of the Principal CDA (Pensions), Allahabad. The Complainant has not been informed about the instructions / regulations under which the deductions are being made without giving him advance notice. He has been given different amounts of deductions due in various communications from the bank. Such information, as has been provided, is ‘false and misguiding’.
3. We would like to hear the Respondents before taking a decision in this matter. Therefore, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 19 th April 2016 at 11.00 a.m. through videoconferencing. The Registry is directed to get in touch with the Respondents to ensure that they are represented at the next hearing. The Respondents should file their written submissions to the Commission, with a copy to the Complainant, explaining their position and enclosing therewith a copy of the reply, if any, given by the CPIO to the RTI application dated 17.8.2015. The written submissions should be forwarded to the Commission by post and also by email at sharat.s@nic.in, so as to reach the Commission latest by 12.4.2016. The venue for videoconferencing during the hearing on 19.4.2016 will be as follows:
For the Complainant and the Respondents
NIC, District Centre, R. No. 233,
Second Floor, Treasury Building, Distt,
Magistrate Office, Chinsuragh, Hooghly – 712101
The Contact Officer is Bidyapati Kumar, Scientist –C & Contact No. 03326803265
Hearing on 19.4.2016
4. The matter came up again today. No one was present on behalf of the Complainant. The official in charge of the NIC Studio at Hooghly stated that someone had come to the studio to represent the Complainant, but had left by the time the matter came up. The Respondents stated that both the RTI applications were responded to. The application dated 17.8.2015 (File No. 226) was responded to by the CPIO on 29.8.2015 and the other RTI application dated 8.10.2015 (File No. 454) was responded to on 9.11.2015. The information sought by the Complainant was provided, with the exception of a few cases, in which he was informed that he would have to pay certain charges to get the information. However, the Respondents assured us that such information would now be sent to the Complainant, free of charge, by post at his address, at the earliest.
5. We note that the Complainant’s queries in the two RTI applications centre around the following grievances:
(i) Certain recoveries from his pension are being made without giving him any prior notice and
(ii) different amounts of total recovery due have been conveyed to him from time to time.
In his written submissions to the Commission, he has also claimed that as per a circular of DOPT, excess payment wrongly given by the employer or disbursing authority cannot be recovered from pensioners.
6. The Respondents stated that such recoveries are usually made after discussing the matter with a pensioner and admitted that no written advance notice was given to the Complainant. As regards the amount of recovery, they stated that initially it was wrongly communicated as Rs. 4.45 lakhs. However, subsequently it was corrected to Rs. 3.55 lakhs and the relevant statement was also provided to the Complainant.
7. In his written submissions to the Commission, the Complainant has also stated that in spite of his serious illness, the CPIO did not reply within forty eight hours. It appears that his reference is to the “life or liberty” proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. In this context, we note that in its decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000814/18825 dated 9.5.2012, the Commission observed as follows:
“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 forty eight 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 non-supply 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.”
Going by the above interpretation of the Commission, the cases before us do not fall within the scope of the “life or liberty” proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act.
8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and note that the Commission is not in a position to address the grievances of the Complainant, mentioned at paragraph 5 above, under the RTI Act. Both the cases under consideration are complaints filed under Section 18 of the Act and the Complainant has prayed for action against the CPIO under Section 20 (1) and (2) and payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to him in terms of Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act. We would confine ourselves to these prayers of the Complainant. It is seen that the Respondents responded to both the RTI applications and provided the information as per their records. The Complainant appears to believe that the information provided to him does not address his grievances which, as stated above, the Commission is not in a position to address under the RTI Act. Some information, for which the Respondents had asked the Complainant to pay the prescribed charges, is now being provided free of charge, as per the assurance given by the Respondents to us (paragraph 4 above). Taking into account the totality of the facts placed before us, we do not regard it as a fit case for consideration of action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The Complainant has also not established any loss or detriment suffered by him as a result of the replies of the Respondents to his RTI applications. The issue concerns recoveries from his pension and the Commission cannot sit in judgment over whether the said recoveries are in order or not.
9. In view of the foregoing, further enquiry into the two complaints, registered on Files No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000226/SH and CIC/SH/C/2015/000454 is not considered necessary. However, at the same time, we would advise the Respondents to give a personal hearing to the Complainant or his duly authorised representative, at the level of a senior officer, with a view to addressing his grievance to the extent possible.
10. With the above observations, the two complaints are disposed of.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Sunil Kumar Sabui Namarer Bagan v. United Bank of India in File No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000226/SH File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000454