Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Names and designation of the personnel who allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to unstarred question No.1818 - Respondent: A speculative request; Appellant filing repetitive and multiple RTI applications - CIC: Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed, henceforth

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2023 seeking the following information:-

The names and designation of the personnel who gave wrong information to the Honourable Minister for Finance in the reply to unstarred question No.1818 answered in Lok Sabha on 13.02.2023 that the Bank Employees Pension Regulations does not have provisions for updating pension in bank.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“As per the provisions of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005, CPIO is required to provide information as exists in the record. Queries seeking explanation/ clarifications/ opinion/ suggestion are not covered in the definition of "lnformation" under Section 2(0 of the Act. CPIO is not supposed to create information, or interpret information, or to give non-existing opinion/advice on problems raised by the applicants, or to furnish replies to situational queries in response to an RTI application. lnformation regarding name, designation, work allocation etc. is already available in public domain and same can be accessed from the official website of Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance at financialservice.gov.in.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA’s order dated 13.04.2023 held as under:

“The Appeal Registration No. DOFSR/A/E/29/00029 dated 17.03.2023 preferred by the appellant Shri C. N. Venugopalan, under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, has been examined and it is observed that Shri Venugopalan had sought information related to the Unstarred Question No. 1828 and not to the Unstarred Question No. 1818 answered in Lok Sabha on 13.02.2023 vide online RTI Registration No. DOFSR/R/E/23/00179 dated 14.02.2023. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of IR section had considered the request of the Applicant in the light of the provisions of the RTI Act and sent reply on 28.02.2023. However, dissatisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal on the ground that CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading or false information.

After going through the request for information dated 14.02.2023, reply of CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2023 and the contents of the Appeal preferred in the matter, it is found that CPIO, I.R. Section vide letter 15/573/2015-IR dated 28.02.2023 has appropriately replied to the said RTI application on the basis of the records available in the relevant file. In this connection, it is stated that under RTI Act, CPIO is required to provide information as it exists in the record and not supposed to create information or interpret information or to furnish replies to situational queries or to give explanation, opinion, comment, clarification, advise on matters in response to an RTI application. Further, to seek fresh information relating to Point No. (6) in the Appeal, the Appellant is required to make separate application to the concerned authority, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. As such, reply of CPIO in this regard is in order and does not call for any interference by the Appellate Authority.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.05.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vijay Shankar Tiwari, Under Secretary and CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has made a speculative request based on baseless allegation that the information provided to him was wrong. Therefore, the question could not have been addressed through any material record, as per definition of “information” under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the CPIO stated that the appellant was a habitual RTI applicant seeking similar or identical information through multiple RTI applications.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that the appellant has been filing repetitive and multiple RTI applications with the respondent authority. In the above backdrop, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed, henceforth. The Respondent(s) are also at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: C N Venugopalan v. Department of Financial Service, New Delhi, CIC/DOFSR/A/2023/121128; Date of Decision: 04.09.2024