PIO: As the requested video recording was not done, the question of providing the same does not arise - CIC: Under the RTI framework, the CPIO is not required to create or generate information, he is only required to supply the information as available
10 Apr, 2023Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of action taken against the culprits with reference to letter dated 28/03/2022 of NIA, CTCR Division, Ministry of Home Affairs.
2. Provide a copy of the recording of the Video Conferencing held on 24/03/2022.
3. Provide a copy of the relevant page of the Register kept at the entrance containing the entry details of the appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was aggrieved due to non-receipt of material information from the CPIO. He failed to elaborate on the queries asked by him in his RTI application as these were vague and unclear. Per contra, the CPIO submitted that the reply furnished to the appellant vide letters dated 06/04/2022 and 17/05/2022 was point-wise and appropriate. The CPIO however could not establish as to how Section- 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act, 2005 applies to information sought for in point no. 3.
Observations:
In view of the facts of the present case, the Commission observed that the appellant was seeking action taken by the respondent on a letter dated 28/03/2022 in query no. 1. The Commission noted that the appellant has not categorically mentioned the information sought for by him through his RTI queries at any stage. During the hearing, the appellant failed to mention the exact details of the letter for which he was seeking the action taken. Therefore, the Commission held that the instant query being unspecific and vague cannot be responded to.
The Commission accepted the response of the CPIO qua query no. 2 as the requested video recording was not done by the respondent authority, therefore, the question of providing the same does not arise. Under the RTI framework, the CPIO is not required to create or generate information, he is only required to supply the information as available in the records. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, 2008 (110) Bom L R 1238 wherein it was held that the public authority was not bound to provide explanation or justification as to why the sought for information was not available on the records of the public authority. Therefore, the reply to query no. 2 was upheld by the Commission.
It was further noted that query no. 3 was vague and unspecific. The appellant failed to categorically mention the exact dates for which he had sought the information. Therefore, the Commission held that the CPIO is not obligated to provide any reply to such vague and open-ended queries. However, it was also noted that the exemption clause Section- 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act, 2005 which was inadvertently invoked by the CPIO, was not applicable to query no.3. Therefore, the CPIO was advised by the Commission to deny the information invoking the correct exemption clause for each of the points duly supported by reasons for denial in future.
The appellant was also advised by the Commission to file RTI applications systematically in a structured manner with specific focussed requests.
Decision:
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Amit Kumar v. Central Information Commission (CIC), File no.: CIC/CICOM/A/2022/131596; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023