2008 (6) TMI 544 - Commission - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of information under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
2. Handling of third-party information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
3. Provision of voluminous information and its implications under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
4. Compliance with the Central Information Commission's (CIC) Orders.
5. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the CIC's decisions.
6. Transfer of RTI applications between departments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Information under Section 8 of the RTI Act:
The Appellant sought detailed information regarding the empanelment and appointment of officers at various levels within the Government of India. The CPIOs denied part of the information citing exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, arguing that the information related to the Civil Services Board, contained personal information, and was privileged as part of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet's decision-making process. The Appellate Authority noted that it was insufficient to merely quote the section; specific reasons and sub-sections must be provided to justify the exemption.

2. Handling of Third-Party Information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act:
The Appellant, associated with an NGO, sought information not directly related to him, invoking third-party provisions under Section 11(1). The Appellate Authority emphasized the necessity for the CPIO to notify the third parties and consider their submissions before disclosing information. The CPIOs were directed to issue notices to the concerned officers, which would be a significant exercise due to the large number of officers involved.

3. Provision of Voluminous Information and Its Implications under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act:
The information requested was extensive, involving numerous files and data compilation. The Appellate Authority and the CIC considered the feasibility of providing such voluminous information under Section 7(9), which allows for refusal if it disproportionately diverts resources. The CIC directed the CPIOs to find practical ways to provide the information without disrupting the department's functioning.

4. Compliance with the CIC's Orders:
Despite the Appellate Authority's orders, there was a significant delay in providing the requested information. The Appellant highlighted non-compliance and partial fulfillment of the CIC's directives. The CIC reiterated the need for timely action and directed the CPIOs to review and adhere to the Appellate Authority's advice, ensuring the information was provided within a month.

5. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety of the CIC's Decisions:
The Appellant challenged the CIC's decision, arguing procedural improprieties, including the lack of notice and hearing, and the jurisdictional issue of a single Commissioner passing orders initially decided by a two-member bench. The High Court remanded the matter back to a newly constituted bench of Commissioners, directing them to continue proceedings from the last public hearing stage.

6. Transfer of RTI Applications Between Departments:
The Appellant's request for information regarding the appointment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries was initially transferred from the DoPT to the Cabinet Secretariat. However, the Cabinet Secretariat did not respond appropriately, leading to confusion and further delays. The CIC clarified that once an RTI application is transferred to the correct custodian of records, it is that department's responsibility to respond.

Conclusion:
The CIC concluded that the DoPT and the Cabinet Secretariat must allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant files and provide copies of the documents as specified by the Appellant, free of cost due to the undue delay. The Appellant retains the right to approach the CIC again if the orders are not satisfactorily complied with. The decision emphasizes the importance of transparency, timely compliance, and proper procedural adherence in handling RTI requests.

← Previous Next →