Copies of Resolution dated 01.04.1963 issued for the constitution of CBI & file notings were denied as secret - CIC: Secret is not a valid exemption under RTI Act; PIO to appear on 16.12.2020 to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed u/s 20
2 Dec, 2020Copies of the Resolution dated 01.04.1963 issued for the constitution of CBI & file notings were denied as confidential/ secret/Top Secret - CIC observed that confidential/ secret/Top Secret is not a valid exemption under the RTI Act - CIC: The CPIO has failed to justify or cite any Section of the RTI Act under which the asked for information is being denied on account of confidentiality/top-secrecy - The representative of the CPIO also admitted the fact that the sought for information is available in public domain - CIC issue a show cause notice to the concerned CPIO, Shri S P R Tripathi to explain why penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him; the CPIO to appear before the bench on 16.12.2020 at 01.30 pm
Information Sought:
The complainant has sought certified copies of the Resolution dated 01/04/1963 issued for the constitution of CBI by the concerned Ministry of Govt of India and all noting pages of the concerned files connected with the issuing of resolution from start date of noting portion to 30/04/1963.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not provided the information stating that the file is confidential/ secret/Top Secret.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not provided the information stating that the file is confidential/ secret/Top Secret.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant in his complaint petition submitted that the copies of the resolution No.4/31/61-T Dated 1.4.1963 are available in public domain and also printed in various Manuals and Books including the CBI Crime Manual 2005, which is available on the web site of the CBI. This resolution has also been supplied by CPIO of Dept. of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances, GoI, New Delhi to various applicants who sought the information under RTI Act. Therefore, in the light of the above it cannot be said that the certified copy of the Resolution dated 1.4.1963 has become a document confidential/Secret/Top Secret in nature. Moreover, when the copy of the resolution is not confidential/Secret/Top Secret in nature, then as a corollary, all the noting pages of the concerned files connected with the issuing of the resolution from start date of noting portion to 30.4.1963, cannot become confidential/Secret/Top Secret in nature. He also submitted that the relevant file is available in the archives and hence the same should have been provided to him at the relevant time.
Furthermore, he submitted that the CPIO has failed to justify or cite any Section of the RTI Act under which the asked for information is being denied on account of confidentiality/top-secrecy. It is pertinent to mention that RTI Act is a transparency law and it has overriding effect u/s 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. over any other law including the Official Secrets Act, being enforced in consistent with this Act.
That the information in the form of the reply of the CPIO on his RTI Application is misleading, evasive and is given just to deny him the asked for information without any backing of any sections of the RTI Act. Apart from it, the reply of the CPIO is also delayed beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. He also submitted that as per section 18 (e) and (f) of the RTI Act 2005, "who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act " can request the Central Information Commission to inquire into the complaint filed by the complainant. Thus the reply dated 05.12.2018 of the CPIO has attracted the provisions of sections 18 (e) and (f) of the RTI Act, which has forced the applicant to file the complaint before the CIC.
The representative of the CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 05.12.2018. He also submitted that the information is available on their website.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and from a perusal of the relevant case records, the Commission is in agreement with the submissions of the complainant that without claiming exemption under any provision of the RTI Act, the information sought cannot be denied. Moreover, confidential is not a valid exemption under the RTI Act. The representative of the CPIO also admitted the fact that the sought for information is available in public domain. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO that the requested documents of the file are confidential/secret/top secret in nature and disclosure of the same is not going to serve any public purpose is totally misleading and irrelevant.
Since the CPIO was not present to explain as to why such an evasive reply was given, the Commission is constrained to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO to explain as to why such a grossly improper reply was given.
Interim Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission is constrained to issue a show cause notice to the concerned CPIO, Shri S P R Tripathi to explain why penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for prima facie obstruction of information and providing an evasive reply. The Commission directs the above-mentioned CPIO to appear before the bench on 16.12.2020 at 01.30 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. He is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents upon which he choose to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission atleast 5 days prior to the hearing via link-paper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.
The case is accordingly adjourned.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Jagjit Singh v. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training in File no.: -CIC/DOP&T/C/2018/174788, Date of Decision: 29/10/2020