Definition of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) - CIC: Regarding shuffling the RTI Application between the public authorities is concerned, the action of either of the PIOs cannot be deemed as malafide or deliberate; Query requires deduction and interpretation
11 Sep, 2020Information sought:
The Complainant sought to know the definition of Non-Resident Indian, and certified copies of DOP&T File no. 1/44/2009 and copy of documents related to processing of Lok Sabha unstarred question no. 3535 (from the time it was first received in DoP&T till its response).
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIOs have not provided the desired information within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on phone.
Respondent No.1: Pawan Kumar, US & CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi present on phone.
Respondent No.2: Ms. Deepa Jain, Nodal CPIO and Subbiah Sridhar, CPIO(OIA-II), RTI Cell, Ministry of External Affairs, Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan, Janpath, Delhi present in person.
Respondent No.3: Not present. (Written submission dated 15.07.2020 received from Anil Kumar Madan, Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance stating that upon receipt of the instant RTI Application on 31.08.2018, it was transferred to CBDT vide letter dated 10.10.2018.)
At the outset, Complainant narrated the context of the information sought which is that on 08.08.2018 in response to part (b) of Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3535, the Hon’ble MoS Dr. Jitendra Singh stated that “Only Citizens of India have the right to seek information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Non -Resident Indians (NRI) are not eligible to file RTI Application.” Now, because as per his understanding, NRIs are very much Indian citizens and have the right to seek information under RTI Act, 2005 he sought to know the meaning of NRI and documents related to the processing of the said Unstarred Question. He further stated that during the pendency of the Complaint, although by and large he has received the requisite information but he is aggrieved with the inordinate delay caused by the Respondents particularly Respondent No.1 in providing the information and the fact that his RTI Application was shuffled back and forth between these Respondents without providing any material information on para 2(a) of the RTI Application. That, he received the information on para 2(b) of the RTI Application from Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 26.10.2018, which was after a delay of 2 months and subsequent to that he received some additional information vide letter(s) dated 15.11.2018 & 26.11.2018. That, on para 2(a) of the RTI Application, he was informed vide letter dated 28.08.2018 of Respondent No.1 that the RTI Application has been transferred to Respondent No. 2 & 3, subsequently, on 07.01.2019 he received intimation of Respondent No.2 stating that the RTI Application has been transferred back to Respondent No.1 as the subject matter pertains to them. Eventually, Respondent No.1 took another 8 months to merely inform him vide letter dated 24.09.2019 that the RTI Application has been again transferred to Respondent Nos.2 & Ministry of Home Affairs. He prayed that the said callous conduct of the Respondents should be reprimanded and enquired into and action be taken against the erring CPIOs under Section 20 of RTI Act.
Respondent No.1 submitted that the delay in providing the reply was inadvertent and was on account of the fact that instant matter was being taken up with the Lok Sabha(Question Branch) for rectification of the reply and even so the reply was rectified, it could not be provided as the then CPIO was on medical leave since June 2018 and the CPIO who provided the reply dated 26.10.2018 took the charge on 15.10.2018. He furthermore tendered his unconditional apology for the delay and assured that same was on account of collection of information from various departments and there was no malafide intention on their part to obstruct/delay in providing the information sought in the instant RTI Application.
Respondent No.2 submitted that upon receipt of the RTI Application on 31.12.2018 through CBDT, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance it was transferred to DoPT on 07.01.2019 as the subject matter pertained to them.
Decision
Commission based on the perusal of facts on record observes that as far as the question of shuffling the RTI Application between the public authorities for information sought at para 2(a) of the RTI Application is concerned, the action of either of the CPIOs cannot be deemed as malafide or deliberate. The said observation is based on the fact that in strict sense the information sought vide para 2(a) of RTI Application does not seek any specific record but definition of an NRI, which requires deduction and interpretation on the part of the CPIOs and therefore does not conform to 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. It may be noted that outstretching the interpretation of 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 to include deductions; inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions of RTI Act.
However, the delay caused by Respondent No.1 & 3 in transferring the RTI Application is in gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act. Yet, for want of any malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the concerned CPIOs, Commission is not inclined to take penal action against them. However, Respondent No. 1 & 3 are hereby warned to remain careful in future and stick to time stipulations prescribed under RTI Act, particularly, where the RTI Application has to be merely transferred to another public authority, there ought not be such unwarranted delay.
Similarly, the delay caused by Respondent No.1 in providing information on the remaining paras of the RTI Application is condoned in light of the explanation tendered by the CPIO.
Further, no action lies against Respondent No.2 as appropriate and timely action was taken by the concerned CPIO on the instant RTI Application.
With the above observations and remarks, the Complaint is disposed of.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.) v. Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of External Affairs and Department of Revenue in File No : CIC/DOP&T/C/2018/632780, Date of Decision : 20/08/2020