Respondent: the parliamentary committee was looking into questions of women empowerment at the time of the RTI application; the report is now available on Lok Sabha Secretariat website - CIC: provide copy of final report
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 27.9.2012 requesting for copy of a letter dated 19.9.2012 referred to in the application and letter sent by Delhi Police to a parliamentary committee. The CPIO responded on 16.10.2012, denying information to the appellant on point 2 under Section 8(1)(d), section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 14.11.2012. The FAA responded on 31.2.2012 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 3.1.2013 in a second appeal.
2. Both the parties were present personally in the hearing. The appellant was represented by a representative.
3. The appellant’s representative referred to the RTI application of 27.9.2012 and reiterated both the points made in the RTI application. The appellant’s representative stated that though he has received a reply from the CPIO dated 16.10.2012 but that reply is avoiding the issue. The appellant’s representative further stated that the response of the CPIO is very cryptic which is evident from the letter itself that while they have mechanically and without application of mind cited some clauses but without giving any reasons.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIO’s response of 16.10.2012 took into account the fact that the parliamentary committee looking into questions of women empowerment was at the time of the RTI application conducting deliberations with various departments and stake holders as per due process. The respondent also stated that there was a questionnaire with certain reference points in the interest of a constructive discussion. The respondent stated that it is known that parliamentary processes at the Committee’s level are at a high level with an element of confidentiality in the interest of parliamentary processes which is maintained till the finalization of the report.
5. The respondent stated that the report has now been finalized a few months ago and it is now a final product and also available on the Lok Sabha Sectt.’s website.
6. The respondent is directed, reference para 5 above, to provide a copy of the final report to the appellant within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Yogesh Kumar v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000367/VS/05899