Departments to disclose the information on website – CIC Order
Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/172750/MH&FW-BJ
1. CPIO
Under Secretary
| Date of Hearing | : | 25.03.2019 |
| Date of Decision | : | 25.03.2019 |
| Date of RTI application | 10.04.2017 |
| CPIO’s response |
21.04.2017
11.05.2017
07.06 .2017
|
| Date of the First Appeal |
18 .08.2017
|
| First Appellate Authorities response | Not on Record |
| Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission |
20.10.2017 |
RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action. Subsequently, the Section Officer, Department of Health & FW, RTI Cell, vide its letter datd 11.05.2017 transferred the
RTI application to the CPIOs under Ministry of Health & FW with the direction to forward/transfer the application to the concerned CPIO, if not pertained to their Division. Subsequently, the CPIO & US to the Govt of
India, Department of Health Research, vide its letter dated 07.06.2017
provided a response pertaining to their Department. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the
concemed departments after several transfers of his application, the
Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Dept. of Expenditure (M: 9968093914) and Mr. Devinder Kumar, US (M: 8076696905), Mr. Vinod Kumar, DS, Dept. of Health Research (M: 7042710050), and Mr. P. K. Singh, US, M/oH&FW (M: 9873915959);
subordinate autonomous institutions. However, it was essential that the concerned Ministries
/ Departments and other institutions governed by them, should compile data pertaining to the compassionate appointments and post it on their website for perusal by all concerned. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare (RTI Cell), dated 20.03.2019 wherein it was submitted that the RTI Section of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide letter dated 11.05.2017 had transferred the application to the Department of Health Research and 12 concerned CPIOs in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, for providing information on point no. 03, 05 & 07. On examination of the enclosures attached with the aforesaid notice, it is observed that on receiving the above said RTI application, Department of Health Research vide their letter dated 07.06.2017 had transferred the above said RTI application to the Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research. Furthermore, the Applicant had filed 1st Appeal vide letter dated 05.09.2017 and 18.08.2017 before the FAA in Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) on grounds of non receipt of information from NJIL &
O. MD, Agra to whom the RTI application was transferred for providing information. Furthermore, the Applicant has filed the 2nd Appeal due to non-receipt of any response from the NJIL & O. MD, Agra, which is under administrative control of ICMR. Moreover, the CPIO, RTI, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, who is Respondent No. 5 in this case had taken the actions due on his part. Furthermore, no relief has been sought against his actions in the 2nd Appeal.
which are cadre controlling authorities for various services/posts and as
per instructions in the DoP&T O.M. No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 (as upheld vide CIC decision no. CIC/OOCMD/A/2016/305357 dated 19.06.2017). The applicant was advised to obtain the information by applying before the concerned Ministries. However, information in respect of the posts administered in DoP&T was provided vide Jetter dated 16.05.2017. The Hearing Notice had also been forwarded to the CPIOs concerned in DoP&T, to attend the hearing. Moreover, the Appellant in his 2nd Appeal dated 16.1002017 filed before the Commission acknowledged the replies to his RTI application from the transferee Ministries including DoP&T and no deficiency is pointed out in these replies by the Appellant and the 2nd Appeal is specifically against the Jack of response from one of the Institutes functioning under the Mio Health & Family Welfare.
“22. The expression ”public interest” has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression ”public interest” must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so
as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ”public interest”, like “public purpose”, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is
elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept VG1ying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh ([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionory (8th Edn.)].”
“Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume
4 (IV Edition), ‘Public Interest’ is defined thus:
“Public Interest (I) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
In Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), ”public interest” is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared
by national government…. “
“………….Public interest has always been co1zsidered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may; to some extent, be affect ed but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having
an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country……….. “
India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
“Private parties ere concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of eve1y State action is also on public interest.”
“Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acis give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge. “
be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information
suomotu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet; so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Commission felt that details on compassionate appointment which were in a waiting list of all the Ministries and autonomous institutions under the Government of India and policy/directives relating to compassionate appointment, etc. should be
suo-motu uploaded on their website to facilitate access to information and efficaciousness of the RTI Act.
under:
“16.lt also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean – making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, ne1·.:”–papers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(l)(b) and 4(l)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.”
v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
“8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Government and their instrumentalities accountable
to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation
is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its
functions;iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes ;v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section4(1 ) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much
information as possible [see Section 4(2)].”
R.B.I and Ors. V. Jayantilal
N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015
“The ideal of ‘Government by the people’ makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for ‘open governance ‘ which is a foundation of democracy.”
“14……. The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought in to force. It seeks to foster an “openness culture” among state agencies, and a wider section of ”public authorities” whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.”
“The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him I her and then either disclose ·the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure.”
7. “it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements
of the Act. Section 5{4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a defquit by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”. The RTI Act makes the PIO
the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”
“3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving
justification for the decision arrived at.
India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
“9… … … … … … … … … ….. That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply
the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
dated 02.01.2018, CIC/CBECE/A/2017/123158-BJ dated 09.08.2017, CIC/BHELD/A/2017/113532/BJ
dated 08.08.2017, CIC/RK/A/2016/000141/BJ dated 09.08.2016,
etc disclosure of information relating to compassionate appointments was directed/ advised to be
suo-motu disclosed by the concerned Public Authorities on their website.
Departments to exercise due diligence in notifying the compliance of the guidelines of DoP&T in
respect of compassionate appointments made by all the concerned organizations
/ departments covered by its Circular. Such information should be
displayed on the website of each of the
institutions governed by DoP&T for the benefit of employees and public at large. The compliance of the directives of the Commission should be done within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of this order.
आयुक्त)
(के. एल. दास)
/ Date: 25.03.2019
COMMENTS