PIO: RTI Act does not empower DoPT to decide whether an organization is a public authority - CIC: The Appellant is strongly rebuked for making a mockery of the RTI Act; the contents of his RTI Applications and grounds of Appeal are outright ludicrous

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2020 seeking the following information:

1. “Please provide documents duly attested by PIO in hierarchy position with name and designation under Section 5(1) of RTI Act 2005 and Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 regarding the Chief Justice of India including 31 judges of Supreme Court of India are not coming under RTI Act 2005 since from 2005 to 2020.

2. Please provide the documents duly attested by PIO in hierarchy position with name and designation under Section 5(1) of RTI Act 2005 and section 20 of RTI ACT 2005 regarding not appointed the Public Information Officer and FAA in the office of the Chief Justice of India including 31 judges of SCI from 2005 to 2020 excluding central registry of SCI.

3. Please provide documents duty attested by PIO in hierarchy position with name and designation under Section 5(1) of RTI Act 2005 and Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 regarding the reasons for not appointing the Public Information Officer in the office of the Chief Justice of India including 31 judges of SCI since from 2005 to 2020.

4. Please provide documents duly attested by PIQ in hierarchy position with name and designation under Section 5(1) of RT1 Act 2005 and Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 regarding the CJI and 31 judges of SCI are not public authority under the RTI Act 2005.”

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 07.09.2020 as under:-

Point 1&4: “The determination of whether or not an orgarization is a public authority has to be decided in the light of the statutory definition of the term. Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act, 2005 provides the definition of the term "public authority''. Section 2(a) of the Act provides that the Central Government may by notifications constitute/establish any body owned controlled or substantially funded as public authority. The RTI Act does not empower DoPT to decide whether an organization is a public authority, the remedy for the same is provided in the statue.

Point 2&3: No such information is available with the CPIO.

Your RTI has already been transferred to Supreme Court of India and Department of Justice by RTI-Cell of this Department to provide information, if any, on your RTI application.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

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

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Pawan Kumar, US (IR-II) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.

Decision:

At the outset, the Commission recalls the adverse remarks recorded against the appalling misuse of the RTI Act being continued by the Appellant time and again. While this bench of the Commission has alone heard more than 20 cases, the instant case is being heard as a part of 19 other cases of the same Appellant filed against different public authorities, and the records of the Commission suggest that till date more than 400 odd cases of him have been disposed of by different benches. This bench had recorded in one such case heard vide File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/126122 as under:

“The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this bench dated 10.02.2021 in an earlier set of appeals filed by the same Appellant (CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/114497 + 10 other Appeals) wherein the following adverse observations were recorded:

‘This bench of the Commission heard 11 other Appeals of the Appellant simultaneously and upon a conjoint consideration of these cases it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is unabashedly filing multiple RTI Applications, which in most cases is repetitive in nature as the same RTI Application is filed with different public authorities. Moreover, the queries of the Appellant neither 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; of the RTI Act nor can these be comprehended easily. The Appellant seeks all sundry information under the garb of transparency and in the process of dealing with these RTI Applications, at some point in time, invariably; each public authority is dealing with the same RTI Application more than once. The Commission is also irked to note that in all of these Appeals, the Appellant has stated in his Second Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case in person or through his representative also. This further establishes the fact that the Appellant is merely a habitual RTI Applicant with no intention of gaining access to information. The RTI Applications, First Appeal(s) and Second Appeals of the Appellant without any substance or merit has a cascading effect on the functioning of the public authorities and throttles the letter and spirit of the RTI Act in addition to causing a huge loss of public money on stationery and allied resources. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Appellant shall note that even the superior Courts have recognized the misuse of the RTI Act as an impediment to ensuring transparency and probity in the functioning of the government through various judgments such as the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation……’

xxx”

The instant case appears to be a mere extension of the averred appeals in terms of the manner in which the information is sought for and the grounds on which the Appeal(s) are premised on. Further, as observed in the earlier cases, the Appellant has indicated in the grounds of the instant Appeal that he does not want to avail of the opportunity to plead his case. In addition to this, the Appellant has also returned the notice of hearing of the Commission as “Refused”; he fails to place proper facts on record in terms of the copy of replies received by him or he simply decides for himself that he is not required to accept certain replies that he deems to be improper or returns the replies to the CPIO(s) citing expiry of mandated time period. The Appellant is strongly rebuked for making a mockery of the RTI Act in as much as the contents of all of his RTI Applications and grounds of Appeal(s) are outright ludicrous and completely bereft of merit. The time and resources of the Commission invested in disposing off the cases of the Appellant as well as the time and resources invested by the public authorities in responding to the Commission’s notice(s) as well as attending to the hearings clearly appears to be an avoidable cost to the public exchequer, and the Appellant ought to have due regard to this fact in the spirit of the RTI Act.

The Appellant not seeking for any information as per 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 yet being hysterical in his Second Appeal(s) reminds this bench about the following observations made by the Apex Court in the above discussed judgment of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act:

"….Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-

‘39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.’

In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:

‘8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.’

And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: ‘...xxx

‘This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.’

Similarly, the Preamble of the RTI Act also acknowledges ‘efficient operations of the Governments’, ‘optimum use of limited fiscal resources‘ as a valid consideration while exercising ones right to information.

Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to adjudge the action/alleged inaction of the Respondent in the instant matter and summarily rejects the Appeal.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Om Prakash Kashiram v. Department of Personnel & Training, File No: CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/139727, Date of Decision: 13/12/2022