Is MEA is aware that Dr. Ambedkar in his work “The Riddles in Hinduism” had attacked Indian Gods? CIC: Since no information was to be provided to the complainant, it cannot be said that information was withheld; No action for imposition of penalty on PIO
26 Jan, 2020O R D E R
1. The complainant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi seeking to know whether MEA is aware that Dr. Ambedkar in his work “The Riddles in Hinduism” had attacked Indian Gods.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that no information has been provided by the CPIO. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Smt. Deepa Jain, Under Secretary (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs attended the hearing in person.
4. The respondent submitted that a reply dated 7.06.2018 was sent to the complainant in response to his RTI application dated 25.06.2018. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was informed that no 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; of the RTI Act has been sought rather the complainant had asked the personal views of the CPIO.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; date of judgment 09.08.2011 had observed as under:
“….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; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.…....”
6. The Commission further observes that since no information was to be provided to the complainant, it cannot be said that information was withheld by the respondent. Hence, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shivam Sunil Rai v. CPIO, Ministry Of External Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/C/2018/142476, Date of decision: 19.11.2019