Are there any restrictions on female cops & All Women Police Stations (AWPS) against touching, arresting or detaining male accused as per police law and reason behind it - CIC: Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on Sh. Manas Mandal, the then CPIO/US (J), MHA

O R D E R

The Appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi seeking information/documents on nine points, including, inter-alia,

(i) confirm whether as per Indian Police law, any male can detain, or arrest any accused who is a female, unless accompanied by a female cop,

(ii) confirm whether there are any restrictions on female cops and All Women Police Stations (AWPS) across India against arresting or detaining any accused who is a male as per the Indian Police Law.

The Appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that neither the CPIO nor the FAA responded to his RTI application/first appeal. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information/documents sought for.

Hearing on 18.11.2019

The Appellant Shri Amitabha Biswas along with Shri Kaushik Bhattacharya, Advocate attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent was not present despite notice. The Appellant submitted that no reply in response to his RTI application as well as first appeal has been provided to him by the respondent.

Interim Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Appellant and perusing the records, notes that no reply in response to the Appellant’s RTI application has been given to the Appellant and since the respondent was not present in the hearing, the reason for the same could not be ascertained. Therefore, the CPIO, MHA, New Delhi is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act,2005. The CPIO, MHA, New Delhi is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and by uploading tohttp://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-papercompliance/add before the Commission, on or before 03.12.2019, explaining why action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

The CPIO, MHA, New Delhi is further directed to appear before the Commission on 10.12.2019 at 11.10 AM along with a copy of his written explanations.

The Commission further notes that no reply in response to the RTI application was furnished to the Appellant by the respondent. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide an appropriate reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

Hearing on 10.12.2019:

The Appellant, Shri Amitabha Biswas, attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri R.S. Vaidya, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs was present in person.

The Appellant submitted that no reply in response to his RTI application as well as first appeal has been provided to him by the respondent till date. The respondent submitted that the then CPIO, Shri S.K. Jha, vide letter dated29.11.2019, informed the Commission and the Appellant that as per the records available on online RTI portal, the RTI application and the first appeal were marked to the Judicial division. Thus, the Commission’s order dated 20.11.2019 along with the RTI application and the first appeal has been forwarded to the Judicial division for appropriate action. Further, the notice of hearing, in respect of the hearing held on 18.11.2019 before the Commission, was not received in the RTI-I Section and thus, no one from the Ministry could be present on the date of last hearing. The respondent affirmed that Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl.-II) is the then CPIO, Judicial Division, MHA.

Interim Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submission of the respondent and after perusing the records, observes that, though the RTI application and first appeal were marked to the Judicial Division, no information has been provided to the Appellant by the said division. Since no one from the Judicial Division, MHA was present in the hearing, the reason for the same could not be ascertained. Therefore, the then CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary(Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act,2005.

The Commission hereby directs the then CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi to submit his written submissions both by post and by uploading to http://dsscic.nic.in/online-linkpaper- compliance/add before the Commission, on or before 24.01.2020 explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

The then CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi is also directed to inform if there is/are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the complainant, and if so, to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission on the next date of hearing alongwith their written explanations.

Shri R.S. Vaidya, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the then CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi.

The matter is adjourned and would be listed for hearing in due course. Afresh Notice of Hearing would be issued by the Commission. Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: 02.12.2020 Explanation dated 21.01.2020 has been received from CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi stating that the concerned RTI application filed by the Appellant had been marked to CPIO Sh. T. Haokip, Judicial Division and not to the answering Respondent.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

02.12.2020 Explanation dated 21.01.2020 has been received from CPIO, Shri Manas Mandal, Under Secretary (Judl-II), Judicial Division, MHA, New Delhi stating that the concerned RTI application filed by the Appellant had been marked to CPIO Sh. T. Haokip, Judicial Division and not to the answering Respondent.

Hence, Sh. Mandal was not responsible for not replying to the RTI application. He has further stated that the then CPIO, Judicial Division, MHA - Sh. T Haokip is currently posted as Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Sh. Mohd. Nasim Khan, Sh. Haokip and Sh. Manas Mandal attended the audio conference. Sh. Haokip stated that he had taken printout of the hardcopy of the RTI application and had passed it to Sh. Manas Mandal and was not aware of the further outcome of the RTI application. Sh. Manas Mandal on the other hand reiterated his contention, as already submitted through his explanation dated 21.01.2020 (discussed above).

Decision:

Upon hearing the averments of the parties and perusal of the background of the case at hand, it is noted that the RTI application has been handled very recklessly, and no response has been sent to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause. The respondents – viz. Sh. Mohd. Nasim Khan, Sh. Haokip and Sh. Manas Mandal have simply passed the onus on each other without making any efforts to furnish a proper reply and supply the desired information.

Since the matter is heard by this Bench for the first time, a final opportunity is granted to all the relevant respondents – viz. Sh. Haokip and Sh. Manas Mandal to furnish their explanation for causing deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of information thereby violating provisions of the RTI Act.

Registry of this Bench is directed that a complete set of the 2nd appeal, explanation dated 21.01.2020 sent by Sh. Manas Mandal and Sh. Mohd. Nasim Khan’s submissions be sent to Sh. Haokip at Jeevan Tara Building, 2nd Floor, Room No.208-A, Under Secretary-RE, M/o Commerce and Industry.

Both the Noticees must explain why penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated against them and submit their respective explanations by31.01.2021. It is made clear that in case appropriate and reasonable explanations are not received within the stipulated period, the appeal at hand shall be decided on the basis of available records of the case and no further opportunity shall be granted to either of them.

Show Cause proceedings:

A submission dated 15.01.2021 has been received from Sh. Manas Mandal, which is largely a reiteration of the communication dated 21.01.2020 and points out the following:

i) As per action history of the RTI Application in question, it was marked to CPIO, Sh. T Haokip, the then US(T&PP), Judicial Division, MHA and was never marked/assigned or transferred to him nor was it available on his portal;

ii) The hardcopy printout which Sh. T Haokip claimed to have passed to Sh. Mandal, was never received by him and hence no reply could be furnished in response to the RTI application.

Another submission dated 20.01.2021 has been received from Sh. Thangkholun Haokip, the other Noticee CPIO, stating the following:

i) There were 2 CPIOs in Judicial Division of MHA, viz. Shri T Haokip, US (J&PP) & CPIO and Shri Manas Mandal US (J) & CPIO. J&PP Section, J1 Section, J2 Section and US (J&PP) were in one big hall of Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium (MDCNS)behind India Gate whereas US (J) & CPIO was posted in North Block as he was also looking after Parliament Section, MHA which is in North Block itself.

ii) The normal practise, especially regarding RTI receipts which comes in the US (J&PP) portals are printed out and delivered to the concerned Sections viz; J&PP, J1 and J2 as they are urgent receipts and the electronic receipt would still have been in the portal of US (J&PP). This is also a verbal request from Shri Manas Mandal US (J) & CPIO that instead of forwarding to him online, the print out may be provided to the concerned Section (J 1or J2), since forwarding those to US (J) & CPIO who is in the North Block will further delay the reply to the RTI applicants which are normally urgent. It may not be out of place to mention that many urgent files/court cases like counter affidavits etc. of J1& J2 are forwarded under the signature of US (J&PP) in good faith due to the urgent nature of the case as per the directions of the senior authorities.

iii) It may be seen that the mentioned RTI application was also marked to Shri R S Vaidya, DS (Judicial) on the same date i.e., 09.05.2018(Annexure: ‘A'). For example, even if the copy of the particular RTI from US(J&PP) has not been received by J.1 Section, the copy from DS (Judicial) would have been received by them as DS (Judicial) also normally took the print out and marked to the concerned Sections. As the first appeal has been replied by Shri Manas Mandal, US (J-II) & CPIO dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure: 'B'), itis submitted and prayed before the Hon'ble CIC that the reply already given by MHA may be taken into consideration.

Show Cause Decision: 26.04.2021

1. Before proceeding with the decision in this case, it is important to note the exact queries raised by the Appellant vide his RTI application dated 09.05.2018. The queries are as follows:

1. As per Indian Police law, no male cop can touch, arrest or detain any female accused unless accompanied by female cop. “Yes” or “No”?

2. Are there any restrictions on female cops and All Women Police Stations (AWPS) across India against touching, arresting or detaining male accused as per your police law? “Yes” or “No”?

3. In case the answers to queries number 1 & 2 are ‘Yes’ & ‘No’ respectively, briefly explain the reason behind it. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere it is directly written that “rights to respect, dignity and modesty” etc are women’s patented properties and men shouldn’t have any of these rights, so women can touch men at ease. So briefly explain why on part of your ministry there is no restriction on female cops and AWPS against touching, arresting men.

4. Is there any order or directive that should bring each and every police station across India under 24 hours CCTV cover including their lockups? If ‘Yes’ please give the order number.

5. The State treats female Acid Attack victims with ‘special care’. Is that ‘special care’ applicable for female on male acid attack victims(males) as well?? ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

6. If the reply to above question is ‘No’, please tell the reason.

7. Indian women nowadays committing violent crimes against men like murdering husbands, bobbitizing (cutting off genitals) men, acid attacking men, compelling or pushing husbands to suicide. We are coming to know about such incidents by virtue of media. Despite all these your NCRB lacks any special chapter called “Crimes Against Men committed by Women”. Please explain the reason behind such apathy and bias against men.

8. To the best of my knowledge, no IPC directly prohibits execution of female death row convicts. But in Indian history, till date you can’t find one single example where a woman death row convict has been executed. It seems gallows are reserved for male death row convicts here in India. Can you explain it??

9. In how many cases, from 2010 to 2016, Indian police has taken suo-motu penal actions against women for lodging false cases under IPC sections 376, 354 (with all their sub-sections) and 498A? Have any record? Please give if you have.

The queries number 3,6,7 and 8 seek opinion of the Respondent and hence do not qualify as information under the Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 in terms of the decision dated 03.04.2008 authored by J. S A Bobde in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commissioner 2008 (110) Bom L R 1238, relevant extracts whereof are as follows:

“ …Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information…”

Thus in terms of the above decision and the Supreme Court decision in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors., the legal position has been clearly laid out that asking for reason/basis/clarification did not fall within the meaning of information, under the RTI Act. No information is liable to be provided against the queries 3,6,7 and 8.

2. Now dealing with the submissions sent by the two Noticees, it is noted that both Noticees have indulged in an exercise of passing the onus on each other, while unfortunately, neither of them has demonstrated any effort towards dissemination of the information in terms of the RTI Act.

3. On perusal of the documents submitted by the Respondent from time to time, it is noted that though Sh. Manas Mandal in his brief explanation has outrightly denied having ever received the RTI application, a response dated 06.02.2019 had been sent by him to the Appellant, referring to RTI appeal dated 02.01.2019. Contents of the reply reveals that the Noticee was aware of RTI applications filed by the Appellant and had responded that the said applications were not traceable in Judicial Cell-I. In the said response dated 06.02.2019, the Respondent- Sh. Manas Mandal has even stated the following: Judicial Wing deals only with the legislative aspects of IPC and CrPC. Regarding, making the laws gender-neutral, it is submitted that criminal laws are in the concurrent list of the constitution of India and are implemented by States. Hence, the Government of India, after holding wide ranging of consultation with various State Governments, various Ministries of the Central Government, National Women Commission, various non-governmental organizations engaged in empowerment of women and other stakeholders and based on the reports/comments received from various women groups/organization, has made the offences like rape, sexual assault stalking etc. gender specific and the perpetrator is said to be a man. Offences like sexual harassment along with other offences like voyeurism or stalking are usually perpetrated by a man on a woman. These sections have been enacted to protect and check rising sexual offences against women.

In the light of the above facts, the submission of the Noticee- Sh. Manas Mandal claiming that he had no knowledge of the RTI application in question, cannot be accepted. In fact, the letter dated 06.02.2019 establishes the fact that he possessed knowledge about RTI applications having been filed by the Appellant but instead of making any effort to trace the same or ask the Appellant to send another copy of the same, he chose to simply avoid any responsibility about answering the same, passing the entire onus of lapse in replying on his fellow colleague – Sh. T Haokip. The conduct of Sh. Mandal is clearly unacceptable as a PIO under the RTI regime and also unbecoming for a responsible public servant.

The Commission is not inclined to overlook the lapse on the part of the Noticee Sh. Manas Mandal, in willfully and deliberately violating the provisions of the RTI Act by circumventing his responsibility of replying to the nine queries raised by the Appellant, in terms of the Act. Despite being given a fair opportunity by the Commission to submit a reasonable explanation for not furnishing a reply to the Appellant, the Noticee in question only repeated his averments and passed the onus on his counterpart-Sh. Haokip. He seemed completely oblivious of the correspondence dated 06.02.2019 which he had himself sent to the Appellant, indicating that he had knowledge of the Appellant’s RTI application, but had failed to provide appropriate response to the Appellant’s queries. The only point Sh. Mandal has repeatedly stated is about the action history of the RTI application, without divulging about the general practise and his verbal understanding with his colleague that instead of forwarding RTI applications to him online, the print out may be provided to the concerned Section (J 1or J2).

In the light of the above discussion, the Commission holds the Noticee, Sh. Manas Mandal, the then CPIO/US (J), MHA and currently the Under secretary, Ministry of Finance, Depart of Revenue responsible for causing obstruction to the dissemination of information and deliberate denial of information to the nine queries raised by the Appellant vide RTI application dated 09.05.2018. He has failed to submit a plausible explanation for the willful default in not replying to the RTI queries raised by the Appellant, despite being granted adequate opportunity. Hence, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] is imposed on the Noticee, Sh. Manas Mandal, the then CPIO/US (J), MHA and currently the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under Section 20 of the RTI Act, for violation of provisions of the RTI Act by delaying the supply of information without any reasonable cause.

4. The explanation submitted by the other Noticee-Sh. Thangkholun Haokip – the then US (J&PP) & CPIO is accepted and he is directed to provide a pointwise response to the queries in terms of the RTI Act, except on the queries 3,6,7 and 8, for the reasons discussed in paragraph 1 above. The reply should be furnished within four weeks of receipt of this order and compliance report in this regard should reach the Commission by 30.05.2021. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as envisaged in the Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha

Chief Information Commissioner

As per the decision of Commission of even date, in exercise of powers vested under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, 2005 penalty/s of Rupees Ten Thousandis being imposed on the Noticee, Sh. Manas Mandal, the then CPIO/US (J), MHAwhich should be paid in two equal instalments of Rupees Five Thousand each. The first instalment of the aforesaid penalty should reach the Commission by 20.05.2021and the last instalment of penalty should reach the Commission by 20.06.2021. The penalty imposed should be remitted through Demand Draft or a Banker’s Cheque drawn in favour of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and the same should be sent to Central Registry-II, Central Information Commission, Room No. 109, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110067.

Citation: Amitabha Biswas v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/627157, Date of Decision of Original case: 03.12.2020