A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC heard 10 appeals against Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - CIC: It is a glaring example of misuse of the RTI mechanism where a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by manufacturing a series of queries based on the response

9 Apr, 2021

(1) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070

(2) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877

Since the issues raised in both the RTI applications related to meetings of TIFR Council, the above mentioned 2 cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.

Information sought and background of the case:

CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2019 seeking first set of byelaws adopted in the 12th TIFR council meeting held on 18.10.1947.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 11.02.2019 replied as under:-

“This is a repeated RTI. The response to TIOFR/R/2018/50029 pertaining to the said request stated that there is no record. No further information as defined under 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; is being sought. Accordingly, the RTI application is disposed off.”

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 20.02.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2019 seeking information regarding a meeting of the TIFR Council of Management on 28.06.2011.

(a) Provide the date when the notice of the meeting was sent.

(b) Provide the minutes.

(c) If not covered in (b), provide the number of members who attended the meeting and whether this was an adjourned meeting.

(d) Provide the names of all the Council members even if they did not attend this meeting along with their nomination agency.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 20.05.2019 disposed off the RTI application stating that the similar RTI applications were filed by the Appellant seeking minutes of the meeting of Council of Management of TIFR in many of Appellant’s earlier applications. Further, CPIO noted that a Writ Petition no. 1262 of 2017 is pending in the Bombay High Court. Moreover, the CPIO referred to the decision of the CIC in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain vs DTC wherein the CIC has considered the case of repetitive use of RTI Act and harassment to the Public Authority and abuse of RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2019. The FAA, vide online reply dated 06.06.2019, upheld the reply of the CPIO observing as under:-

“I concur that you have been continuously filing RTIs and seeking information that are most of the time unclear, vague and repetitive. The language used while seeking information under RTI and appeals is abusive and offensive in nature. You are therefore once again warned to desist and restrain yourself from using such kind of un-parliamentary language while seeking information in your RTI and appeals.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070) wherein it was submitted that the first set of bye-laws were not available with the Institute. Moreover, such similar applications had already been previously disposed off by the PIO (TIOFR/R/2018/50029). There is no record available with TIFR to show that the copy of first set of bye-laws had been sent to Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT). Moreover, there is no record available with TIFR to suggest that SDTT is a public authority, coming under the purview of the RTI Act since it is a separate entity from TIFR and TIFR is not authorized to call for information from SDTT. Hence, it does not amount to information under 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 RTI Act. A reference was also made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission to argue that the Public Authority is not bound to provide explanation or justification hence the Appellant cannot seek information as to why the said information was not available on the records of the Institute.

With regard to the harassment caused by the Appellant, the Respondent inter alia stated that:

1. The Appellant, an ex-faculty member, filed writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the institute regarding granting of Ph.D to a student.

2. The Appellant has filed about 148 RTI Applications and 50 appeals till date. A copy of list of applications filed online by the Appellant was annexed with the written submission.

3. Most of the applications pertains to the Ph. D student with respect to whom the writ petition was filed, the School of Technology and Computer Sciences (STCS) of the institute to which the Ph D student belonged to, Council of the Institute and funding/expenditure of the Institute.

4. The Appellant has filed several frivolous applications based on his own theories, assumptions and speculations.

5. The Appellant used foul and offensive language several times and makes insinuations/allegations without any basis

6. He has also attempted to institute various criminal actions against the Institute, council members, Government of India, Government of Maharashtra and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.

The Respondent therefore inter alia prayed before the Commission to take action against the Appellant from further abusing the RTI Act and to impose costs against him. The abovementioned prayer and submission regarding the harassment caused by the Appellant by filing multiple RTI Applications, was reiterated by the Respondent in all the other written submissions pertaining to the other Second Appeals/ Complaint under consideration herein.

A written submission has also been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877) wherein it was submitted that the Appellant has already filed about 19 applications pertaining to the TIFR council out of which 10 were regarding the meetings of the council and 6 specifically requesting for copies of minutes and notices of certain meetings. It was stated that while considering the repetitive nature of the applications and the Appellant’s past record they thought it fit to reject his application, in view of CIC’s decision in Ramesh Chand Jain v. DTC. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant, by constant and repetitive filing of RTI application on same/similar subject, has caused harassment, diversion and wastage of public resources resulting in a strain on the limited infrastructure available to the Institute.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. At the outset, he stated that the issues raised in all his RTI applications were in the larger public interest pertaining to governance and administrative irregularities in the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR). He further stated that instead of disclosing the information sought by him which should have been mandatorily disclosed by the Public Authority as per Section 4 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent deliberately denied him the information.

As regards, the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070, the Appellant stated that being a cardinal document relating to creation of the first bye laws, the same ought to be held and available with the Public Authority. Regarding the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877, the Appellant argued that the queries raised therein were not repetitive in nature. He stated that the promotion of 2 faculty members was part of the agenda of the said meeting of 2011 and that it was his apprehension that promotion was given to them as an undue favour for conducting a biased investigation on an incident pertaining to alleged cheating by a Ph.D candidate in the selection examination.

The Respondent is represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She reiterated her written submission dated 19.01.2021 and stated that the information sought in Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070 is not available with the Public Authority and that they did not have any regulatory authority to retrieve the same from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT). Furthermore, similar information was provided to the Appellant against RTI application No TIOFR/R/2018/50029. As regards the RTI application under consideration in Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877, she stated that the Appellant was misusing the RTI mechanism by filing multiple similar RTI applications.

On being queried by the Commission if the issues raised by him regarding alleged wrongful award of Ph.D degree to Shri Naqeeb Ahmed Warsi were challenged by him before a Court of Law, the Appellant replied in the affirmative and stated that a Writ Petition No 1262/2017 has been filed by him before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay which is pending adjudication as on date. Decision

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that a suitable response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the Respondent in Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information which is held and available with a Public Authority can be disclosed. The CPIO is not supposed to create any information nor is he obliged to provide clarifications/ interpretations/ analysis to the information seeker. As regards the queries raised in the RTI application in Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877, the Commission is of the view that queries of similar nature seeking details of the TIFR Council meetings have been made by him in earlier RTI applications and that instead of filing multiple RTI applications, the Appellant could have filed a single consolidated application seeking pointed information. Even if the Commission were to reluctantly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant’s part to fight corruption, the means adopted by him stifles and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. In other words, however noble the purpose of this vigorous attempt to bring about probity in the functioning of TIFR would have been, the fact remains that the means adopted by him by inundating the Public Authority with multiple RTI cases unfortunately only points to the ignorance of the Appellant about the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicant/s to not undermine the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with such a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming that these are aimed at combatting corruption.

The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed

“….filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ….”

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:

“………It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case… … … etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system………..” Emphasis supplied

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:

“...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest.....” Emphasis supplied

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:

“……..Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this “sunshine Act”. A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ………………..” Emphasis supplied

In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West-B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 08.10.2015 has held that:

“8. …..Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto…”

The aforesaid dicta essentially prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.

The Apex Court in a vital decision has categorically cautioned thus:

“...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well-informed democracy is transparency. However, it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use..” (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336). Emphasis supplied

In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:

“...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................

37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability............................. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties...”

The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:

“While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions.”

Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:

“6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.”

Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matters.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

(3) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/129484

(4) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/139840

Since in both these matters, the Appellant questioned the reliance by the Respondent on their record retention policy for destruction of their records, the above mentioned 2 cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.

CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/129484

The Appellant filed an RTI application, dated20.02.2019, seeking copies of forms filled by Mustansir Barma (a former Director of TIFR) or on his behalf for all the official trips he made to New Delhi from 1 January 2011 to 15 August 2011.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 08.03.2019 replied as under:-

“As already informed in response to RTI application no. TIOFR/R/2019/50014, the travel claim documents requested here have been weeded out. Hence, the records are not available. Hence, no information can be provided.”

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 25.03.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/139840

The Appellant has stated in his RTI application that as on 30.01.2012, while he was working in TIFR, he received an email from the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata asking him to fill a survey. However, some people came to the Appellant’s office at TIFR and asked him to fill out the said survey. In this regard, the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points:-

a) Say yes or no if there is a record of people from the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata visiting TIFR in the year 2012. If the answer to (a) is yes, then provide:

b) the stated purpose of their visit to TIFR.

c) the name/designation of the TIFR official under whose invitation/permission, they could enter TIFR premises.

d) the document empowering them to infuriatingly knock on the doors of the faculty.

e) a copy of the said survey that was not included in the email but was shown to me in my office.

f) Provide records overlapping the statement: TIFR allows multi-nationally well-connected rapacious wolves to enter TIFR to force its staff such as by accosting them in their offices to collect profiling information including personal in an unsolicited fashion throwing all propriety to the wind.

g) Provide records overlapping the statement: TIFR has had grim double standards when it comes to the privacy issues of its staff or, at least, some of the lesser staff

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 03.05.2019 replied as under:-

“Kindly note that as per the record retention / weeding out policy the visitor entry book entry permit is preserved only for a duration of 5 years. Therefore the visitor entry book record for the year stated has been weeded out. Hence no information can be provided in response to request at (a). Hence queries (b) to (e) are not applicable. In respect of requests at (f) and (g), kindly note these requests for information are very broad based and do not have any relevance to the work of the institute. There is no knowledge whether such information exists. You have in the past made similar requests to TIFR to make comparison between its documents and some statements made by you. You are hereby informed we shall not be dealing with any such queries that request such comparison to be made. Further the request for such information are exempted 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. 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 2005(disproportionate diversion).”

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 22.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO referring decision of the CIC dated 24.01.2018 in the matter of Saidur Rehman vs Railway Board as under:-

"Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. has to be read along with section 8(1) of the RTI and it has been very clearly stated where it should be applied. As far as preservation of records is concerned, it is purely the prerogative of the concerned Department. In case if it not stipulated in their rules to preserve the records for a period of 20 years, there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to preserve the record for a 20 years. This should be kept in mind while interpreting section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. of RTI. Further where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to 20 years, section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. of the RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all 'information’ to be preserved and maintained for 20 years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/129484) wherein it was submitted that the Institute has a record retention/weeding out policy. The information sought by the Appellant was not available with the Respondent as it had been weeded out which was clearly informed to him. There is no requirement under the RTI Act that the records be preserved for a particular number of years. The Appellant was clearly aware of the non-availability of travel documents of Prof M. Barma (vide RTI Application No. 2018/20094) and filed this application only to harass the public authority. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant is feigning ignorance by stating that he cannot understand the phrase “weeding out" even though he has good command of English language and the term is commonly used in academic circles.

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/139840) wherein it wassubmitted that the Institute has a record retention/weeding out policy. The information sought by the Appellant was not available with the Respondent as it had been weeded out. Moreover, the Appellant was clearly informed that the documents have been weeded out. There is no requirement under the RTI Act that the records be preserved for a particular number of years. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is feigning ignorance by stating that he cannot understand the phrase “weeding out" even though he has good command of English language and the term is commonly used in academic circles. Since, the visitor book is not available and the information regarding the purported visitor is not available, therefore, the answer to queries till (e) cannot be answered. Moreover, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant, by seeking information for (f) and (g), is having unrealistic expectations and clearly harassing the public authority and its officers.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the plea of the Respondent that the records have been weeded out was in contravention to Section 8 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, as per which all information upto 20 years prior to the date of filing of RTI application has to be disclosed to an information seeker.

The Respondent is represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She stated that the record has been weeded out as per the Record Retention Policy of the Public Authority a copy of which alongwith the noting pertaining to the destruction of the record sought in the RTI application can be provided to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission. Moreover, the arguments regarding misuse of RTI mechanism by the Appellant was also reiterated. On being queried by the Commission, if the record relating to entry/ exit of visitors was maintained in any other document apart from the visitor’s entry book, the Respondent replied in the negative.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the CPIO in both the matters. The issue of legal sanctity of record retention policies of public authorities and interpretation of Section 8 (3) in such context is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, Civil Appeal No 6454/ 2011 decided on 09.08.2011 has categorically held as under:

29. The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer-books. In the case of CBSE, the answer-books are required to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining bodies are required to keep the answer- books for a period of six months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to answer-books does not mean that answer-books will have to be maintained for any longer period than required under the rules and regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer-books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority.

30. On behalf of the respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to sub-section (3) of section 8 of RTI Act, there is an implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. . The said sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of section 8(1). In other words, section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all `information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority.”

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

(5) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/140503

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated12.04.2019 seeking details of all instances where a PhD qualifying exam for the students of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research was held simultaneously in multiple cities excluding the known case of the multi-city Mathematical Structures exam in its School of Technology and Computer Science held on 13thAugust 2011. The CPIO, vide online reply dated 03.05.2019 replied as under:-

“Your request does not state any period for which the information is required. Such information is not collated. To cull out the requested extensive information will lead to disproportionate diversion of resources and hence it is exempted 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. 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 2005. It is further noticed that this request is on similar subjects as your previous requests. Considering the reasons stated above, your RTI application is disposed off.”

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 21.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 wherein it was submitted that the Institute has 3 schools, School of Natural Sciences (NSF), School of Mathematics (MF) and School of Technology and Computer Sciences (STCS). There are 6 subject boards of the institute each one of which have separate guidelines and about 2-3 of these subject boards have qualifiers/ qualifying examinations for Ph. D students. The applicant requested for details of all such instances of multi city qualifiers and did not restrict the application for a period of 5 years or so. It was further stated that there was no procedure on record which states the method by which the qualifying exam/qualifier dates, subject, venue etc needs to be fixed. Hence, the information regarding the same can be in any form. The information being scattered has to be collated from an extensive pool. Moreover, the Appellant has clearly been informed that the said information is not available in collated form. It would require extensive scrutiny of various mails/documents, collating the same would require disproportionate diversion of resources and hence, such information cannot be provided. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant had used demeaning language in the application.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information sought was not large and voluminous and should be available with the Public Authority. It further stated that there did not exist any rationalised rules within TIFR for conducting muti city examination and that it was his apprehension that the said loophole was exploited at the time when Shri Naqeeb Ahmed Warsi appeared for the Ph D selection examination.

The Respondent is represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She stated that the record was not collated in a consolidated form in an excel sheet/ register and that several correspondences were made regarding conducting examinations through emails collation of which from the year 2011 till the date of filing RTI application would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Moreover, the arguments regarding misuse of RTI mechanism by the Appellant was also reiterated.

Decision:

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, it is evident that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is provided by the CPIO since the public authority is not required to provide such information which is not readily available in a consolidated form in its records. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

(6) CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/144699

(7) CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629

Since in both these matters, the Appellant desired for information relating to performance and recruitment of personnel, the above mentioned 2 cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.

CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/144699

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.05.2019 seeking details about Sugata Sanyal’s career progression and publications with TIFR, who was faculty member at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in the School Technology and Computer Science(STCS).

a. Provide the dates of all the promotions of Sugata Sanyal in TIFR.

b. Provide the publication list of Sugata Sanyal at the time of his last promotion.

c. Provide the date when Sugata Sanyal retired.

d. Provide the details of the very first employment of Sugata Sanyal after he retired from TIFR.

e. Provide the minutes of the meeting of the TIFR Council of Management that gave the last promotion to Sugata Sanyal and if the minutes do not include the members who attended the meeting and whether it was an adjourned meeting, then you ought to provide me that info as well.

f. Provide the list of courses that Sugata Sanyal taught in TIFR within 15 years before the date of his retirement.

g. I was checking the publications of Sugata Sanyal on arxiv.org. Sugata Sanyal has a paper on the arxiv titled Shortened Hamming Codes Maximizing Double Error Detection (arxiv.org/abs/1011.1933). The paper was withdrawn. My question is beyond that. Say yes or no if anyone raised the issue that since this paper is so much different from his other papers both in terms of content and mathematical level, Sugata could not have come up with such paper and this paper, despite having the name of Sugata, and perhaps could only have been written by person(s) other than Sugata.

h. Say yes or no if Sugata was ever questioned by TIFR on the issue in (g).

i. Say yes or no if there were any reservations expressed on the promotions of Sugata such as by saying that his papers have been very far from the mystique of so-called fundamental research in TIFR.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 12.06.2019 disposed off the RTI application stating that the multiple similar RTI applications were filed by the Appellant seeking opinion and details of the action taken by TIFR. Further, CPIO referred the decision of the CIC in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain vs DTC wherein the CIC considered this as a case of repetitive use of RTI Act and assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and abuse of RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 20.06.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO observing as under:-

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 22.06.2019 seeking information on following 06 points:-

(a) While in TIFR, I checked records of Umang. As I remember, the minutes of STCS faculty meeting in Aug 2014 that recommended Umang be offered a faculty position had merely some bureaucratic words to this effect, did not say as to how it took care of the adverse opinions on Umang within TIFR, and did not have any positive opinions on Umang. Confirm or deny this. If you deny, then provide the minutes of the said faculty meeting.

(b) Name the TIFR Director who made the offer and the date of the offer to Umang.

(c) Say yes or no if TIFR Director was aware, while making the offer to Umang, of the adverse comments on Umang within TIFR.

(d) If the answer to (c) is no, then say yes or no if TIFR has conducted an investigation as to how an offer of a TIFR faculty position was made by the TIFR Director based on partial information.

(e) Provide records of any positive opinions on Umang expressed by any TIFR faculty on his application.

(f) Say yes or no if there has been ever an instance in TIFR other than Umang where an offer of a faculty position was made where some TIFR faculty expressed adverse opinions but none expressed positive opinions on the application.

The aforesaid leads to intrigue if some assumptions are made.

Conjecture: Assume Sayan withdrew his application from TIFR after getting an inside information that there was strong opposition. Two TIFR faculty compared, as Dean wished, Umang with Sayan and placed Umang to be less than or equal to Sayan. Umang was offered a TIFR faculty position. Then, the mafia behind Sayan said in an unwritten unofficial form that our sweetheart Sayan had to withdraw his application but since Umang, who is less than or equal to Sayan, was inducted, hence, our mafia should get a credit for future induction of one of our guys as TIFR faculty who is at the level of Umang. This mafioso understanding undermines a fair faculty hiring process.

(g) Say yes or no if TIFR has investigated the various aspects of the aforesaid conjecture.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 19.07.2019 disposed off the RTI application stating that the multiple similar RTI applications were filed by the Appellant seeking opinion and details of the action taken by TIFR. Further, CPIO referred the decision of the CIC in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain vs DTC wherein the CIC considered this as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act and assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and abuse of RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 18.09.2019 instructed the PIO to recheck the records and provide the reply to the Appellant. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 18.10.2019 provided a point wise response to the Appellant providing information on only point b of the RTI application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/144699) wherein it was submitted that the Appellant has filed about 26 applications regarding STCS requesting several queries with regard to decisions/working of the STCS, selection of Dean and faculty appointments. Considering the repetitive nature of the applications and the Appellant’s past record, the Respondent stated that they thought it fit to reject his application, in view of CIC’s decision in Ramesh Chand Jain v. DTC. The act, of the Appellant, of filing of numerous applications caused strain to the limited infrastructure and manpower available to the Institute.

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 (Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629) wherein it was submitted that the Appellant has filed about 25 applications regarding STCS requesting several queries with regard to decisions/working of the STCS, information regarding appointment and promotion of faculty members/ selection of Dean. Considering the repetitive nature of the applications and the Appellant’s past record, the Respondent stated that they thought it fit to reject his application, in view of CIC’s decision in Ramesh Chand Jain v. DTC. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant, by constant and repetitive filing of RTI application on same/similar subject, has caused harassment, diversion and wastage of public resources along with causing strain on the limited infrastructure available to the Institute.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that instead of providing point wise information, an incorrect plea was taken by the Respondent denying disclosure of information on the ground that multiple RTI applications were filed by him

The Respondent is represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She stated that the Appellant filed multiple RTI applications on similar issues causing harassment to public authority officials and resulting in misuse of the RTI mechanism.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that although a response is provided in Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/144699, a point wise response should have been provided to the Appellant taking into consideration, the exemptions mentioned u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised point wise response to the Appellant. The aforementioned direction should be complied with by 28.02.2021 under intimation to the Commission.

As regards Appeal No CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629, the Commission observes that information on point (b) regarding Name the TIFR Director who made the offer and the date of the offer to Umang should be disclosed by the Appellant. However, the Commission also notes that the Appellant in several points such as points (a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) has sought opinions of the CPIO on hypothetical questions which does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. Similarly information on points e regarding positive response of TIFR faculty members on Shri Umang’s application is a personal information of third party exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure is justified by the Appellant. Rather, on perusal of the Second Appeal, it is evident that the context of framing RTI applications by the Appellant is based on surmises and conjectures regarding the activities of TIFR, commenting on which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Thus, in view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised response on only point (b) of the RTI application to the Appellant by 28.02.2021 under intimation to the Commission.

With the above directions, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

(8) CIC/TIOFR/C/2019/147408

The Complainant filed RTI application dated 23.11.2017 seeking information on 13 points:-

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 22.12.2017 replied as under:-

(a) The information will have to be culled out from the various documents available, which will lead to disproportionate diversion of resources. This is thus exempted 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. 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, 2005.

(b) The information will have to be culled out from the various documents available, which will lead to disproportionate diversion of resources. This is thus exempted 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. 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, 2005.

(c) The first count cannot be provided as this will have to be culled out from the various documents available, which will lead to disproportionate diversion of resources. This is thus exempted 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. 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, 2005.We do not have a record showing Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. Hence, the second requested count also cannot be provided. (d) The entire first set of bye-laws were adopted in the 12th meeting of the Council, held on 18th October, 1947.

(e) The information will have to be culled out from the various documents available, which will lead to disproportionate diversion of resources. This is thus exempted 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. 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, 2005.

(f) There is no record of such information.

(g) The Director.

(h) There is no information in this regard.

(i) Not applicable

(j) There is no record of any document stipulating the same. Copy of the aforementioned tripartite agreement has been provided to you.

(k) There is no record of any document stating the same.

(l) Not applicable.

(m) In 1956, Dr. Homi J. Bhabha was the Director of TIFR.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2017. The FAA vide online reply dated 18.01.2018 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 wherein at the outset it was submitted thata complaint has been filed by Shri Sharma against the response received on points a, b, c and e of the RTI application. While referring to their current rules and bye laws, the Respondent provided a point wise response on the aforementioned queries of RTI application. It was concluded that for the purpose of responding to queries a, b, c, and e, more than 200 minutes will have to be scrutinised and the Appellant was well aware that there was only one person/ officer handling this information. While relying on the response of the CPIO against RTI application No TIOFR/R/2017/50047, annexed with the written submission, the Respondent stated that the Appellant had used demeaning language in the application.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Complainant participated in the hearing through video conference. At the outset, he challenged the tripartite agreement entered into between the Government of India, Government of Bombay and the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) on 18.02.1956 for establishment of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) as also the various clauses/ terms of agreement contained therein allowing SDTT substantial control over the activities of TIFR despite miniscule financial contribution by it to cover the expenditures of TIFR. In the complaint filed before the Commission, he also contested the manner in which TIFR council meetings were conducted. As regards the instant RTI application, he argued that reliance was incorrectly placed by the CPIO on Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information on points a, b, c and e was straightforward and ought to be readily available with the Respondent.

The Respondent is represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She referred to her written submission dated 19.01.2021 and stated that information regarding the basis on which number of council members were changed from 7 to 8 members was not collated and readily available with the Respondent Public Authority since minutes on all meetings held from 1956 will have to be examined, analysed and interpreted before giving a response to the RTI application hence reliance on Section 7 (9) was placed by the CPIO. On being queried by the Commission, if inspection of the minutes could have been offered to the Complainant earlier, she stated that the certain minutes contain confidential information relating to the affairs of the Department of Atomic Energy severing which would not have been feasible on the part of the CPIO.

Decision:

Having heard both the parties and on the perusal of the available records, the Commission notes that the instant matter has been filed as a Complaint under the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the only issue for determination is whether further action u/s 18 and 20 may be initiated against the CPIO for malafidely or unreasonably denying the information. Taking into consideration the averments of both the parties during the hearing and perusal of the available documents, the Commission finds that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

With the above observation, the instant complaint stands dismissed, accordingly.

(9) CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/109163

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2019 seeking details of all the members of the current Council on following 12 points:-

(a) Name

(b) Nationality

(d) Time served as the Chairman of the current Council if applicable

(e) Time served as the acting Chairman of the current Council if applicable

(f) Nomination agency that nominated the member into the current Council

(g) Details of the highest educational qualification obtained through formal education at the time of entering the current Council. Please note that this information excludes any honorary degrees and they should not provided.

(h) Age

(i) Profession, if any, of the member during the time served in the current Council other than being a member of the Council

(j) If, for any member, you do not provide the asked-for full information, then please justify why you are not providing it.

(k) If not already covered in your response to (j), if you are not providing the asked-for full information, then please justify, such as by quoting Section(s) of the RTI Act 2005, what stops you from seeking this information from the current Council members and providing it to me.

(l) I had asked for this information for the past Council members in my earlier RTI, which you provided very partially in your infinite wisdom. For example, you never provided the educational qualifications obtained through formal education, age, nationality, profession etc. If you are going to accuse me of asking repetitive information, then you need to justify how that is true

The CPIO, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research vide letter dated 24.09.2019 furnished pointwise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2019. The FAA vide online order dated 14.10.2019 disposed of the First Appeal stating as under:-

1. It is noted that the PIO has replied correctly to your queries (a), (c),(d), (e), and (f) vide letter dated 24.9.2019. In regard to your queries (b), (g), (h), and (i) the PIO has replied correctly and as per the section 6 (3) of RTI Act 2005, your RTI application had been transferred to the concerned Public authorities for necessary action. You will be receiving the responses from the concerned authorities.

2. It is noted that the PIO has not transferred your RTI to one of the entity [i.e.; Sir Dorabji Tata Trust]. The PIO has been instructed to transfer the same to SDTT as well.

3. The rest of the part of your appeal does not pertain to your RTI application no. TIOFR/R/2019/50081. Hence cannot be entertained.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 wherein it was submitted that the Appellant is seeking educational qualifications of members of the Council. The PIO has transferred the application to the Public Authorities which were either nominating bodies or the bodies where such member held a position, as per information available on TIFR website. One such Council member is nominated by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and RTI was sent to SDTT, as per the directions of FAA. No further obligation, as per its own set of rules, bye-laws, or any other law, can be laid on PIO to pursue the application after it has transferred the application. The RTI Act does not empower authority to collect information from other sources and deals with only information available with the authority. The Respondent submitted that the PIO has sufficiently responded to the queries made by the Appellant and also the Appellant has already filed a complaint regarding the appointment with the police.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information sought should be disclosed by the Respondent in the larger public interest as the members of the council conduct academic appraisals of the topmost scientists of the country. He further stated that disclosure of information would assist him to initiate further action against unqualified members and chairperson of the council. During the hearing, he also challenged the credentials of Shri Ratan Tata for being appointed as the Chairperson of the Council.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She stated that point wise information as per available records was already provided to the Appellant. She further stated that several points in the RTI application did not pertain to their organisations and were hence transferred to Government of India, Government of Maharashtra as also Sir Dorabji Tata Trust as per the direction of the FAA. However, no further obligation, as per its own set of rules, bye-laws, or any other law, can be laid on PIO to pursue the application after it has transferred the application.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that information as per available record is provided by the CPIO, hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

(10) CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/137324

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.01.2020 seeking information on following 2 points in response to RTI application TIOFR/R/2019/50101 stating that “the Council unanimously elected Ratan Tata as the Council Chairman for the term 2019-2021.

(a) Provide the aspects of the voting in the Council that you record. For example, you might record the vote of each Council member and vote(s) of the Chairman, or you might record only the number of votes for or against, or you might record only if the decision is unanimous. Please specify in detail your recording process of the voting. Clearly, secret ballot does not seem to be an option given that for the aforesaid decision, it was recorded that the decision was unanimous.

(b) If the recording process of the voting is not specified, then please clearly state if it is left to the person-in-charge of the recording process, which is the Registrar I guess as per Rule 6, as to what to record and what not to record.

The CPIO, vide online reply dated 29.01.2020 stated that the data sought does not fall within the purview of the definition of information as defined under RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2020. The FAA vide online reply dated 18.03.2020 while upholding the reply of the CPIO stated that once it is recorded that a vote in unanimous, further aspects are redundant and there is no need to record the same. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2021 wherein it was submitted that the information sought does not amount to information under RTI Act. Thus, there is no onus on the PIO to create any information or to explain why such information was not available. The Respondent submitted that the RTI Act only deals with providing information available on the record and does not require any authority to create any specific record. Also, there is nothing on the record of TIFR that it can provide with regard to said application.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. While questioning the credentials of Shri Ratan Tata for being appointed as the Chairperson of the Council, the Appellant stated that process of recording unanimous election of Shri Tata as the Chairperson should have been disclosed.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Sucheta Dixit, PIO and AO (D) Legal through video conference. She stated that while replying to an earlier RTI application, the Appellant was already informed Shri Tata was unanimously elected as the Chairperson of the Council for the term 2019-2021 and that extract of the minutes pertaining to the same was already provided to him. Hence, the instant RTI application is baseless filed with the intention of harassing the public authority officials as all available information was already provided to the Appellant.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that information as per available record is provided by the CPIO against an RTI earlier application, hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. The instant matter is a glaring example of misuse of the RTI mechanism where it is evident that a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by the information seeker by manufacturing a series of queries based on the response provided by the CPIO. Furthermore, on perusal of the Second Appeal, it is evident that the context of framing RTI applications by the Appellant is based on surmises and conjectures regarding the activities of TIFR, commenting on which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Naresh Sharma v. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Second Appeal No. CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/110070 CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/142877 CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/129484 CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/139840 CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/140503 CIC/TIOFR/A/2019/144699 CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/102629 CIC/TIOFR/C/2019/147408 CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/109163 CIC/TIOFR/A/2020/137324, Date of Decision: 29.01.2021

CIC heard 10 appeals against Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - CIC: It is a glaring example of misuse of the RTI mechanism where a never ending process of seeking information is resorted to by manufacturing a series of queries based on the response

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.