No penalty for an error of judgment
4 Jan, 2012
Background
The appellant sought information about the steps taken by the Ministry to improve Hindi Language and make Hindi as National Language; steps taken to improve and develop Indian Culture; Copy of citizen charter; Facilities given to NGOs/ Media and rules under which they are given; Copy of rules for empanelment; copies of all PSUs; Copies of complaints disposal rules; Details and location of next World Hindi Sammellan; Copy of list of committees, samitees formed by the ministry etc. The PIO replied that the information sought is scattered in various Divisions of the Ministry and its compilation would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as provided under Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. Therefore, the appellant was advised to file individual RTI application(s) on specific subject. The FAA concurred with the PIO.
Discussion before the CIC
The appellant alleged that the PIO has made no effort to provide the information and has very carelessly refused to give information claiming that compiling the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. The Commission discussed with the Dy. Secretary about the queries sought by the appellant who agreed that information on most of the queries could be provided within 2 weeks and it would not need too much resource to provide the information.
View of the CIC
The Commission observed that the PIO has referred to Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act but he does not appear to have read the said section. Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. does not justify any denial of information; it only suggests that if providing the information in the format sought by the Appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority the information could be given in an alternate form. The Commission noted that if information is held by different people of different division in any public authority, information should be provided after seeking assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Instead of doing this, the PIO chose to refuse to give the information which is without any basis in the law. The Commission also noted that the PIO had not even told the appellant as to how to breakup his RTI application so that he could handle it properly. Instead some information has been provided to the Appellant after over 100 days. The Commission issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty on account of delay. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the PIO. The Dy. Secretary (and deemed PIO) submitted that he was not aware of the time that it would take to collected the information from different sources. He asked various officers to send the information on 23/09/2011 as per the direction of Commission but received the information in different bits until 28/11/2011. The Commission felt that Dy. Secretary should have understood the complexity of providing the information when he made the statement before the Commission. This seems to display grave incompetence. However, the Commission did not impose a penalty as it feels that Dy. Secretary has made an error of judging the time required for collating the information. The Commission observed that an officer of adequate competence should represent the public authority before the Commission and supervise the gathering of the information.
Citation: Dr. Parveen Gupta v. Ministry of External Affairs in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002198/14805Penalty/Adjunct