2014 (1) TMI 993 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to information - Transfer of application from one department to another - Non relevant reply given to appellant - Held that - The provisions of Section clearly define the duties to be performed by a CAPIO under the RTI Act i.e. (i) to receive the RTI applications or appeals from citizens and (ii) to forward the same to the officers/authority(s) appointed under the Act to deal with such applications/appeals. The law does not authorise the CAPIO/SAPIO to respond to RTI applications - According to Respondents since there is no CPIO designated in the office of the Solicitor General of India, and they look after the administrative function of the former, the RTI application had come to them for giving response to the Complainant. Commission hereby directs the Respondents-Department of Legal Affairs - who looks after the administrative functions of the office of the Solicitor General of India, to file a written submission before the Commission in support of their plea that the Solicitor General of India falls under the same footing as that of the office of Attorney General for India and that the full Bench decision of the Commission in the case of Attorney General for India (as referred to hereinabove) would apply to them (Solicitor General of India) as well. The written submission should reach the Commission by or before 20-11-2013. A copy of the written submission should also be sent to the Appellant for him to file rejoinder, if any - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
(i) Authorization of CAPIO to respond to RTI applications
(ii) Routing of RTI application to CAPIO instead of designated office
(iii) Non-response by the office of the Solicitor General of India to the RTI application
(iv) Status of the office of the Solicitor General of India under the RTI Act

Analysis:

Issue (i) - Authorization of CAPIO to respond to RTI applications:
The Commission found merit in the Complainant's argument that as per Section 5(2) of the RTI Act, the Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) has limited duties. The law specifically designates the duty of responding to RTI applications to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under Section 7(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Commission advised the CPIOs and CAPIOs to act in accordance with the law going forward.

Issue (ii) - Routing of RTI application to CAPIO instead of designated office:
The Respondents explained that since there was no designated CPIO at the office of the Solicitor General of India, the Department of Legal Affairs, who handles administrative matters for the Solicitor General's office, responded to the RTI application. The Complainant contested this explanation, emphasizing the independence of the Solicitor General's office from the Department of Legal Affairs.

Issues (iii) and (iv) - Non-response by the office of the Solicitor General of India and its status under the RTI Act:
The Commission directed the Department of Legal Affairs to submit a written explanation supporting their stance that the Solicitor General of India should be treated similarly to the Attorney General of India, as per a previous decision by the Commission. The matter was scheduled for further hearing, and both parties were instructed to be present.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the unauthorized response by the CAPIO, the routing of the RTI application to the Department of Legal Affairs, and the status of the Solicitor General of India under the RTI Act. Further proceedings were scheduled to delve into these issues and reach a resolution based on legal provisions and previous decisions.