Appellant disputed the veracity of the information given and questioned the mode of verification of educational qualifications of MPs put on the Lok Sabha Secretariat website - CIC: Veracity of the information given cannot be adjudicated under the RTI Act
22 Feb, 2023Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
i. Whether the Bio-profiles of the Hon’ble Members of the 17th Lok Sabha displayed/ uploaded on the website of Lok Sabha Secretariat at http://loksabha.nic.in contain true and proper information about the respective Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha or not?
ii. Before displaying/ uploading the Bio-profiles of the Hon’ble Members of Lok Sabha containing important and relevant information about them, which incorporates their age, profession/ occupation, academic qualifications, marital status etc. on the website of Lok Sabha Secretariat at http://loksabha.nic.in, whether the original documents/ certificates etc. submitted by/ received from the Members as proof of their credentials/ academic qualifications, are duly verified and authenticated by the authorities concerned, Lok Sabha Secretariat or not?
iii. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO and order passed by the FAA. He averred that the denial of relevant documents of the respective Hon’ble Members of the Lok Sabha was improper and not as per law. The written submissions of the appellant dated 30.01.2023 were taken on the record of the Commission. He disputed at length the veracity of the information given by the CPIO and questioned the mode of verification of educational qualifications of the Hon’ble Members of the Lok Sabha by the respondent authority.
The CPIO submitted that a proper reply as per the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005 was given to the appellant on 07/10/2021. He further stated that the educational documents of the respective Hon’ble Members of the Lok Sabha as sought for by the appellant were neither collected nor maintained by their office. He stated that the information as available in the records has been given already, therefore, the second appeal was devoid of merits. The written submissions from O/o Information Cell, Lok Sabha Secretariat were received and taken on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
On a perusal of the contents of the RTI application in the instant case, the Commission at the outset noted that the queries no. (i) and (ii) were interrogative in nature and therefore, not “information” as defined in Section2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was brought to the fore that the public authority is not under statutory obligation to provide any clarification or opinion or reply to queries under the RTI Act, 2005, as such queries are not covered under the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission further on a perusal of the case records observed that the information sought for at points no. (iii) and (iv) were not available in the records of the respondent. In this regard, a reference was made by the Commission to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, 2008 (110) Bom L R 1238 wherein it was held that the public authority was not bound to provide explanation or justification as to why the sought for information was not available on the records of the public authority. Resultantly, under the RTI framework, the CPIO is not required to create or generate information, he is only required to supply the information as available in the records.
In another case of Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra, LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:-
“15. …..As already noticed above, ‘right to information’ under Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant.”
The CPIO during the hearing indicated that the related information could be accessed through the website of the Lok Sabha and as per case records, the Commission noted that the direct web links were also given to the appellant by the CPIO and FAA. The Commission also noted that the information sought for at points no. (iii)(b) and (iv)(b) viz. true copies of the educational qualifications, etc. even if available in the records, would fall within the ambit of personal information of the member concerned. Such information is expressly barred from disclosure as per Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 unless any public interest is involved. Therefore, the denial of information is upheld.
The Commission under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot adjudicate the issue of genuineness/veracity of the information given by the CPIO. Therefore, no further action lies.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and concludes that no further action is warranted. The instant second appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Abhoycharan Basu v. Lok Sabha Secretariat, File no.: - CIC/LOKSS/A/2022/610410, Date of Decision : 08/02/2023