CIC: CVC clearances sought at the time of making appointments in a Government Department by ACC could not be said to be in a fiduciary capacity - CIC: Disclosure would serve public purpose by ensuring that the antecedents of the officer are verified

Decision Dated 18.05.2016

Date of Hearing : 04.05.2016

ORDER

1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an application dated 18.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) seeking information on eight points pertaining to news clippings ‘PMO Vs CVC on CBI Additional Director (Outlook 10.02.2014) including

(i) complete information together with related correspondence/ file notings /documents on appointment of Ms. Archana Ramasundaram as Additional Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

(ii) copy of recommendations of CVC for the post of Additional Director of CBI when finally Ms. Archana Ramasundaram was appointed as Additional Director of CBI and

(iii) rules regarding appointment of Director/Additional Director/and others at CBI, where Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) is the final appointing authority.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 19.05.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO, DOPT to whom his RTI application has been transferred by the P.M.O., declined information on points (1) & (2) under Sections 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; , (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information in respect of point numbers (1) & (2) and other remaining points with all sought and related documents and also file notings on movement of his RTI petition, free of cost and award of compensation to him under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal and the respondent Md. Nadeem CPIO and Under Secretary, DOPT were present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that the respondent has denied information wrongly by invoking Sections 8(1) (e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant further submitted that information available with DOPT is not held by it in a fiduciary capacity. The appellant submitted that though the information is personal, it is related to a larger public interest. The appellant explained that the disclosure of the information sought for the appointment of Additional Director, CBI would be in public interest owing to the importance attached with the post and also because the citizen has a right to know the antecedents of the person holding the charge of such an important post. Therefore, larger public interest justifies the disclosure of information.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed that the information sought could not be provided as disclosure of the same was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 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; 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; of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application forms part of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) notes and the issue as to whether the ACC notes can be disclosed or not is pending in the Delhi High Court and therefore, it would be judicious to await for the final outcome. The respondent, however, was not able to establish how the disclosure of information would endanger the life of the person concerned.

Decision:

6. The Commission after hearing both the parties observes that the information sought was denied by the respondent on the ground that the same is held by the respondent in a fiduciary capacity and hence, is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The respondent has also taken plea of 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; 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 (j) of the RTI Act. In regard to this, the Commission observes that it is a general practice that at the time of making appointments in a Government Department, CVC recommendations/clearances are sought and on that basis a report is submitted to the appointing authority. However, the same could not be said to be in a fiduciary capacity as the CVC is not holding any document in confidence and it only enquires into the matter. Further, the DOPT cannot take the plea that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act as the DOPT is not acting in a fiduciary capacity and it is the CVC that acts on behalf of the DOPT in conducting the inquiries. With regard to information sought in point no.1 of the RTI application, the Commission agrees with the respondent that since the matter relating to disclosure of ACC note is subjudice in the High Court of Delhi, it would be judicious to await the final outcome. With regard information sought in point no.2 of the RTI application, the Commission is of the view that disclosure of information would serve larger public interest to the extent that the disclosure would ensure that the antecedents of the officer, who is appointed, have been duly verified.

7. In view of above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide information in respect of point nos. 2 and 8 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after severing therefrom, the information which the respondent finds to be personal information and exempted under 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.

8. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sudhir Bhargava)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Department of Personnel & Training in Decision No. CIC/RM/A/2014/001937/SB