Information about UDID card - PIO: A new UDID card with necessary corrections has already been dispatched - CIC: Correction in UDID card is not amenable under the RTI Act; Superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments
11 Oct, 2021Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 09.02.2020 seeking following information regarding his application for udid card, including inter alia:-
……………………………………
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 09.03.2020 stating as follows:-
“Under UDID project, the Chief Medical Officer (CMHO) of the District verify and approve certificate of disability/UDID card based on the assessment of disability.
UDID card is valid throughout the Country.
Status of UDID application can be tracked online on UDID portal (swavlambancard.gov.in) by quoting enrollment number and date of birth.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. He further narrated his grievance as under –
“In my UDID application, I was entered 80% disability percentage hearing impaired which certificate I got from Tamilnadu govt. Sivaganga district head hospital & Sivaganga district differently abled welfare officer on 18.06.2018 after medical authority checked my both ears. but UDID department was entered only 8% disability instead of 80% disability & also they are generated new UDID card & new disability certificate with these 8% disability. This is irritation & mental agony to me. UDID department services for me is already too late & now for me is not a perfect.
xxxxxxxxx ….
I requested you to ask UDID department to correct my disability percentage from 8% to 80%, and then generate a new UDID number & new UDID disability certificate to me via online & to my address.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present. (Despite multiple calls made at the Complainant’s contact number, the calls were not responded to perpetually.)
Respondent: Diptarka Das, Assistant Director & CPIO present through audioconference.
The Commission at the outset remarked that the hearing notice of the instant case was duly served to the Complainant, however, multiple calls made at the given contact number of the Complainant were not responded to at the allotted time of hearing. It was further remarked by the Commission that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-rectification of disability percentage and also non-issuance of new UDID card by the Respondent public authority.
The CPIO submitted that a factual reply has already been given to the Complainant in terms of RTI Act. He further apprised the Commission that a new UDID card with necessary corrections as sought for has already been dispatched to the Complainant by their office through post and this status was also updated on the e-portal of their website.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Complainant could not be heard of, the Commission is constrained to dispose of the case after hearing submissions of the CPIO and perusing the case records on merits.
In doing so, the Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Complainant through his RTI Application do 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; “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 as he has sought clarifications from the CPIO in the form of interrogatories. In this regard, the Complainant shall note 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; “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 and 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 under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit 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; “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 in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in 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; “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 the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Also, the relief sought by the Complainant through the instant Complaint for the correction in his UDID card is not amenable under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been 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 fora. 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."(Emphasis Supplied)
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
“6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.”(Emphasis Supplied)
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
“20. …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….”(Emphasis Supplied)
And, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma’s case to emphasize as under:
“8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act….”
Nonetheless, the reply and further submissions made by the CPIO during hearing adequately suffices the information sought for by the Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing observation, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Madavan R v. M/o. Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities (Diryangjan) in File No: CIC/DEPDD/C/2020/666931, Date of Decision: 17/08//2021