Disclosure of mercy petition and reports sent by the Governors under RTI
13 Apr, 2012Background
The appellant sought information regarding the reports sent by the Governors and Lt Governors since 2009 and the file noting in respect of the mercy petitions pending with the President of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the total number of reports submitted by the Governors and Lt Governors but refused to disclose the copies of the reports claiming that the it was held in fiduciary capacity and hence is exempted under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. He also denied the file noting in mercy petition cases under section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission observed that the reports sent by the Governors and Lt Governors are not held in a fiduciary capacity. The contents of the reports would decide whether any particular report or part of it should be disclosed or not, because the contents may be covered by other exemption provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the PIO should examine each report on merits and then take a decision of disclosure or partial disclosure or denial depending on whether any exemption provision is attracted or not. Summary denial of information holding the information as fiduciary was rejected by the Commission.
The respondent submitted that copies of 915 reports had been sought and that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as if they would be required to scrutinise all these reports in order to find out if any of it qualifies for disclosure. The Commission accepted this plea of the respondent 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. of the RTI Act and advised the appellant to approach the PIO for any specific report or a few such reports. In such a case, the PIO was directed to scrutinise those reports to find out if the contents could be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that the file noting in the case of pending mercy petitions contain references to the advice tendered by the minister concerned and such information is beyond the scope of any scrutiny by even a court of law as per the provisions of Act 74 of the Constitution of India. The Commission ruled that disclosure of such information can cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the petitioner and is exempt under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
Comments
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. of the RTI Act stipulates that the desired information may not be provided in the form in which it is sought if it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority can be used by the PIO to deal with applications seeking voluminous information. Use of the Article 74 of the Constitution provides another ground for refusal of information not explicitly mentioned in the RTI Act.
Citation: Shri Krishan Lal Mittal v. President’s Secretariat in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002342
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/208
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission