What action can be taken by the CIC against the Govt. Department, if it is giving threats to a RTI applicant and tries to involve him in a false case with the intent to harm him? - CIC: It is not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant
15 Apr, 2023Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What action can be taken by the CIC against the Govt. Department, if it is giving threats to a RTI applicant and tries to involve him in a false case with the intent to harm him?
2. A second appeal File No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/174748 was filed by the appellant in the Commission. Hearing of the same was done after two years from the date of filing, but satisfactory information was not provided to him.
CIC may confirm whether the information provided to him is the correct information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information 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; of the RTI Act, 2005.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted in his second appeal that the ground for preferring the instant appeal was that the CPIO and the FAA had not provided any information on his RTI application. He therefore requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to allow the disclosure of the requisite information. However, he was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice delivered to him on 04.03.2023 vide speed post no. ED301391663IN.
The CPIO while reiterating the initial reply dated 28.01.2022 submitted that the queries raised by the appellant were not 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; of the RTI Act, 2005, hence, no information was provided to him. He stated that the reply was appropriate and upheld by the FAA vide his order dated 01.04.2022. During the hearing he submitted that the previous decision of the Commission dated 11.08.2020 in File No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/174748 was binding in nature and could not be challenged through the RTI channel.
Observations:
Having perused the entire record of the case and hearing the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observed that the queries of the appellant were interrogative and in the nature of eliciting opinion. By way of instant queries, it was noted that the appellant was seeking clarifications and legal opinions of the CPIO which were not a part of the official record. The Commission held that the queries did not conform to the mandate of 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; of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the CPIO was not under any obligation to furnish a reply. The reply of the CPIO and the order passed by the FAA were accordingly upheld.
In this context a reference was also made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s observations in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 (8) SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
35..... “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; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”
The Commission further clarified during the hearing that the veracity/strength of an order passed on the judicial side cannot be challenged by the parties administratively by filing an RTI application. The appellant is therefore apprised that the appropriate forum for challenging the decisions of this Commission is the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, he is advised to approach the appropriate forum for challenging the decision of the Commission.
Decision:
With the aforementioned observations, the instant second appeal is disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Gopal Sahu v. Central Information Commission, File no.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2022/122394; Date of Decision: 15/03/2023