Minutes of meeting of the committees like CEB, ACC, CSB, PESB, lokpal etc.- CIC: Provide access to the permissible information for Lokpal Committee in terms of the number of meetings, dates, details of the persons who attended and subject matter discussed

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.04.2019 seeking information regarding minutes of meeting of the following committees for the last 2 years:

“(i) Central Establishment Board (CEB)

(ii) Appointments Committee of Cabinet

(iii) Civil Services Board

(iv)Public Enterprises Selection Board

(v) Committee for Appointment of CVC & VC

(vi) Selection Committee for the members of CAT

(vii) Selection Committee for the members & Chairperson of Lokpal

(viii) Committee for appointment of CBI Director

(ix) Committee for appointment of officers of rank of SP & Above in CBI

(x) Cadre Review Committee

(xi) National Council (JCM)”

CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/646659

The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 21.05.2019 against point No. (iii) 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; 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; 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; 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, 2005 and further stated that-

“Besides, disclosure of ACC papers/notes under RTI Act is currently under challenge in Delhi High Court in LPA No. 347 of 2010 (Union of India vs. P.D. Khandelwal).”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2019. FAA’s order dated 03.07.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/648842

The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.05.2019 that :-

“…it is informed that only point number (vii) of your RTI concerned with undersigned CPIO. With regard to point (vii) of your RTI application, it is informed that minutes of the Selection Committee's meetings have been shared as secret documents and it is also informed that during hearing of Contempt Petition(C) No. 714/2018, the petitioner inter alia requested the Hon'ble Supreme Court to place in the public domain the names enlisted by the Search Committee. However , the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 7th March, 2019 has, inter-alia, observed as under:- "...for putting the names recommended by the Search Committee in the public domain is concerned, we have considered the provisions of Section 4(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. of the Act and it is our considered view that no direction from the Court should be issued in this regard...."

“…it is informed that only point number (vii) of your RTI concerned with undersigned CPIO. With regard to point (vii) of your RTI application, it is informed that minutes of the Selection Committee's meetings have been shared as secret documents and it is also informed that during hearing of Contempt Petition(C) No. 714/2018, the petitioner inter alia requested the Hon'ble Supreme Court to place in the public domain the names enlisted by the Search Committee. However , the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 7th March, 2019 has, inter-alia, observed as under:- "...for putting the names recommended by the Search Committee in the public domain is concerned, we have considered the provisions of Section 4(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. of the Act and it is our considered view that no direction from the Court should be issued in this regard...."

Thus keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its above order, the consideration of panels of names provided by the Search Committee is an extension of the same process, which has been precluded from being shared on public platform, therefore your requests cannot be acceded to.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2019. FAA’s order dated 03.07.2019upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio conference.

Respondent No.1: Mukesh Kumar, US & CPIO present through audio conference.

Respondent No.2: Hemraj Meena, SO & Representative of CPIO present through audio conference.

The Appellant stated that the denial of the information on point no.(iii) of the RTI Application citing the stay order of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 347 of 2010 (Union of India vs. P.D. Khandelwal) is not appropriate. He further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation has directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from the date of the averred judgment unless in an exceptional case, by a speaking order such stay is extended. He thus contended that there is no stay operating in the said matter and it has been suo motu vacated by the above said SC order.

As for point no.(vii) of the RTI Application, the Appellant argued that the Selection of the Lokpal is being shrouded in unwarranted secrecy thereby negating the very genesis of the the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 as well as disregarding the tenets of probity and transparency espoused under the RTI Act.

Respondent No.2 submitted that their contention in this matter is the same as was submitted in the matter of Anjali Bharadwaj vs. DoPT in File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/635550 which was upheld by this bench in its decision dated 28.01.2021, extract of which is reproduced hereunder:

“The CPIO submitted that the primary premise of denial of the information is not justified as the then CPIO has provided the complete details of the Selection Committee to the Appellant including the gist of all the meetings held by the Committee. He further submitted that the copy of minutes was only denied to the Appellant as being supplied in confidence by the 3-5 high level dignitaries and he further emphasized on the fact that Section 11 of the RTI Act provides for seeking the consent of the third party only in cases where the CPIO intends to disclose the information supplied by a third party and in the instant case as observed in the FAA’s order also, the then CPIO has treated the requested information as being held in confidence vis-à-vis the high level dignitaries (third party). He furthermore submitted that the Selection Committee does not have a Secretariat where the RTI Application could have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and certainly so, said provision of the Act does not provide for transferring the RTI Application to the august members of the selection Committee. He also submitted that the confidentiality of the said record can be gauged by the fact that the averred minutes of the Selection Committee were received in a sealed cover by the DoPT and even in pursuance of related Court matters, the said record was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in sealed cover only. In this context, the CPIO desired to bring the attention of the bench to an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 07.03.2019 in a Contempt Petition filed with respect to the constitution of the Lokpal [CONMT.PET.(C) No. 714/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 245/2014] wherein the Court rejected the plea of the petitioner to put out the names of the enlisted members in the public domain and left it to the Selection Committee to take a call.”

Decision

Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that the issue for determination related to the stay order on the disclosure of the records of Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) vis-à-vis the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation has been dealt with in detail by a coordinate bench in File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/164354 decided on 31.08.2020 wherein the following was held:

“Commission observes that as far as the stay order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide LPA No. 347/2010 is concerned, the applicability of 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; 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; 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; 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 RTI Act is not what is pending adjudication but the moot question is based on a decision of First Appellate Authority as extracted in para 53 of the judgment in W.P (C) No. 8396/2009 which states as under:

‘…….This rule-making power (for conduct of the Government business) of the President of India is his supreme power, in his capacity as the supreme executive of India. This power is unencumbered even by the Acts of Parliament, as this rule-making power flows from the direct constitutional mandate and they are not product of any legislative authorization. In view of the fact that the ―separation of powers‖ is one of the fundamental feature of the our Constitution, these rules, promulgated by the President of India, for regulation of conduct of Government‘s business (Transaction of business and allocation of business) cannot be fettered by any act or by any Judicial decision of any Court, Commission, Tribunal, etc. Since ACC is a product of the rules framed under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, its business (deliberations including the decision whether they are to be made public) are not the subject matter of the decisions of any other authority other than the President of India himself.

Therefore, unless these rules, framed under Article 77(3) themselves provide for disclosure of information pertaining to the working of the cabinet and its committees, no disclosure can be made pertaining to them, under the RTI Act. Therefore, the RTI Act has rightly provided for non-disclosure of the information pertaining to ―Cabinet Papers.’

In other words, the issue pending adjudication in LPA No. 347/2010 is whether records of ACC being Cabinet papers are yet distinct from the records of deliberations of Council of Ministers or not.

It is pertinent to note that 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; 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; 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; 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 RTI Act provides for exemption of cabinet papers including deliberations of Council of Ministers, where decision has not been taken, the matter is not complete, or over. In the instant case, information sought pertains to appointments already made, in other words, where process of appointment is in itself over. Adverting to the genesis of LPA No. 347/2010, it is not appropriate for the CPIO to cite 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; 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; 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; 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 RTI Act but should only restrict to the factum of the stay order operative on the subject of disclosure of records of ACC.

Now, as regards Appellant’s contention regarding applicability of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Criminal Appeal no 1375-1376 of 2013to the stay ordered in LPA No. 347/2010 is concerned, Commission notes that it is difficult to accord a strict interpretation to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. The context of the judgment was a case of criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the moot questions were framed and answered only in said context as evinced from paras 27-34 therein. Moreover, we may consider the instances of judgments like that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1)(1)& Ors (WRIT PETITION NO. 542 OF 2019) dated 28.02.2019 wherein the following was held:

‘4. …Merely relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd (supra), Revenue Authorities now held a belief that any stay against the recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi-judicial proceedings. The power of the Assessing Officer to review the situation every six months, would not authorized him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances.’

And a judgment of the Apex Court in Fazalullah Khan vs. M.Akbar Contractor (D) By Lrs. & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 6088 OF 2011] dated 22.07.2019, wherein it was held as under:

We are constrained to pen down a more detailed order as the judgment of this Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency’s case (supra) is sought to be relied upon by difference courts even in respect of interim orders granted by this Court where the period of 6 months has expired. Such a course of action is not permissible and if the interim order granted by this Court is not vacated and continues beyond a period of 6 months by reason of pendency of the appeal, it cannot be said that the interim order would automatically stand vacated.’

The foregoing instances of interpretation of the ratio laid down in Asian Resurfacing case (supra) suggests that it is capable of more than one interpretation and its import may vary on a case to case basis. Hence, considering the fact that the stay order under reference was passed with respect to the operation of a decision for disclosure of information under RTI Act, which has the trappings of a quasi-judicial decision, it may not be expedient for this bench of the Commission to arrive at the conclusion of an implied vacation of stay.”

The aforesaid stance is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and therefore, no relief can be ordered with respect to point no. (iii) of the RTI Application.

Now, as regards the arguments of Respondent No.2 regarding the similarity of the relief sought for at point no.(vii) of the instant RTI Application with that of the Anjali Bharadwaj’s case (supra) is concerned, the Commission observes that the CPIO had provided permissible information regarding the Selection Committee meetings in that case, per contra, in the instant case, the information has been summarily denied to the Appellant which is not appropriate. For clarity, the decision of the Commission in the averred Anjali Bharadwaj’s case is reproduced hereunder:

“Having heard the contentions of both the parties in detail and after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission observes that the CPIO had provided all the available information pertaining to the Selection Committee as sought for in the RTI Application in terms of the number of meetings held, dates of these meetings, details of the persons who attended the meetings and also a detailed report of the subject matter discussed in each of these meetings, and this fact has not been contested by the Appellant at any point in time. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the CPIO intended to disclose the information to the best of his understanding and the FAA had supplemented the CPIO’s reply by according proper justification for the denial of the copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee meetings by stating that it was held as confidential by the concerned third parties.

Further, adverting to the reliance placed by the parties on an order and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court respectively, the Commission observes that in the matter of Common Cause A Registered Society vs. Ajay Mittal [CONMT. PET.(C) No. 714/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 245/2014] relating to the constitution of the Lokpal, the Court observed as under:

‘….So far as the prayer of Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel, for putting the names recommended by the Search Committee in the public domain is concerned, we have considered the provisions of Section 4(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority. of the Act and it is our considered view that no direction from the Court should be issued in this regard. Rather the matter should be left for a just determination by the Selection Committee as and when the meeting of the Committee is convened.’ Emphasis Supplied.

And, in the matter of Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 436 OF 2018], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while commenting on the status report submitted by the Government with respect to the appointment of the Information Commissioner(s) held as under:

‘35) Insofar as transparency of procedure is concerned, from the status report it becomes clear that the procedure is now adequately transparent. Insofar as transparency of procedure is concerned, from the status report it becomes clear that the procedure is now adequately transparent. The Department of Personnel and Training has put on website information in respect of names of the applicants for these posts, names of the members of Search Committee, agenda for the Search Committee, Minutes of the Search Committee etc. It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that after the Search Committee sends its recommendations the Selection Committee has to make the final selection. The composition of the Selection Committee is provided in Section 12(3) of the Act which consists of:

(i) The Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee;

(ii) The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha;

(iii) The Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

The Statutory Committee, thus, consists of very high ranking persons.

36) Having regard to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there is no transparency in the appointment process, when all essential information in respect of each candidate is made available to the public at large.’ Emphasis Supplied

As it follows, the foregoing extract of the judgment lends perspective to the issue for determination in this case as it can be reasonably deduced that the composition of the Selection Committee in case of the appointment of the Information Commissioners and that of the Lokpal is quite similar in nature. Therefore, the Commission is of the considered view that in the instant matter, the CPIO upheld the interest of transparency by informing the Appellant regarding all the details of the Selection Committee and its meetings; hence the question of lack of transparency does not hold ground. Moreover, having taken cognizance of the averred dictum of the Apex Court, the Commission does not find it appropriate to intervene with the decision of the CPIO.”

Now, adverting to the aforesaid, the Commission directs Respondent No.2 to provide similar access to the permissible information for point no.(vii) of the RTI Application in terms of the ‘number of meetings held, dates of these meetings, details of the persons who attended the meetings and also a report of the subject matter discussed in each of these meetings’ for the time period as mentioned therein. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant by Respondent No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Girish Mittal v. Department of Personnel & Training, M/o Personnel, Public, Grievances & Pensions in File No: CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/646659 & CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/648842, Date of Decision: 15/04/2021