- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission & Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a Public Information Officer (P.I.O) appointed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, challenged an order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the Goa Information Commission. The Commission held the petitioner responsible for furnishing incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information and for providing false information to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had sought specific information regarding seniority lists and promotion practices related to certain posts. The petitioner initially replied with "N.A" (Not Available) to three requisitions and later clarified that "N.A" meant "Not Available" or "I don't know." Dissatisfied, the respondent approached the Goa Information Commission, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this penalty and the Commission's findings before the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, as Public Information Officer, furnished incomplete, misleading, or false information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
- Whether the penalty imposed by the Goa Information Commission on the petitioner for allegedly providing false information was justified.
- Whether answers involving reasons or justifications ("why" questions) fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that the Goa Information Commission wrongly held that she provided incomplete and misleading information on the three points raised by the respondent.
- Regarding the seniority list, the petitioner argued that the Commission's conclusion about false information was untenable without proof that the list was available in the file accessible to her.
- For the questions about promotion and consideration for the post of Curator, the petitioner initially stated "Not Available" and later clarified it meant "I don't know," which was a valid response since a P.I.O cannot manufacture information.
- The petitioner emphasized that the Act defines "information" as material records and does not include reasons or justifications, which are outside the scope of information disclosure.
Respondent No. 2's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of Respondent No. 2's legal arguments beyond the fact that they sought the information and approached the Goa Information Commission when dissatisfied with the petitioner's responses.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the Commission's findings in detail. It noted that the Commission's conclusion that the petitioner provided false information regarding the seniority list was unsupported, as there was no evidence that the list existed in accessible files. The court also examined the Commission's treatment of the petitioner's answers to the "why" questions concerning promotions and found the Commission's reasoning flawed. It recognized that the petitioner initially responded with "Not Available" and later clarified it to mean "I don't know," which the Commission itself initially accepted as permissible since a P.I.O cannot create information. The court further emphasized the statutory definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which includes material records but excludes justifications or reasons for administrative decisions. Thus, the court concluded that the Commission erred in law by treating answers to "why" questions as information to be furnished and by penalizing the petitioner on that basis. This error amounted to a miscarriage of justice, warranting setting aside the impugned order.
Holding and Implications
The court set aside the order of the Goa Information Commission and made the rule absolute, allowing the petition.
The direct effect of this decision is the quashing of the penalty imposed on the petitioner for allegedly providing incomplete, misleading, or false information. The court clarified the scope of "information" under the Right to Information Act, underscoring that reasons or justifications for actions do not constitute information under Section 2(f). No new precedent was established beyond the facts of this case.
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. Heard by consent.
3. The petitioner is Public Information Officer appointed as such under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She has challenged the order dated 27-7-2007 passed by the Goa Information Commission holding her responsible for furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the respondent No. 2 and also for providing false information.
4. The respondent No. 2 had sought the following information from the P.I.O under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Information sought by the Complainant Information provided by the Opponent III 186.c letter from GPSC No. COM/1/1/15/1705/754 dated 3-11-2006 N.A XIV 146.c letter No. COM/11/11/15(1)05 dated 12-06-2006 regarding filling up the post of Curator clarify N.A XV 117.c letter from GPSC to communicate seniority list of Librarian may be sent if not then kindly clarify under what provision of Rule the department to fill up the post by promotion. N.A 1. Copy of the Seniority list of the Common Cadre of the Librarian post from the Directorate of Education, Technical Education and Higher Education. N.A 2. Why the post of curator was not filled up by promotion after retirement of V.B.Hubli as the post filled by direct recruitment through GPSC N.A 3. Why the Librarian from the Engineering College was not considered for promotion for the post of Curator in the Central Library when it was fallen vacant due to retirement of Shri V.P Hubli. N.A
Items 1, 2 & 3 are relevant for a decision of this case.
5. Initially the petitioner wrote the words “N.A” against all the 3 requisitions i.e not available. Thereafter, the second respondent sought clarification as to what the petitioner made clear by the abbreviation “Not Available”. The petitioner clarified that it means “Not Available”. As to other two questions the petitioner clarified by stating “I don't know.” The respondent No. 2 took the matter to the Goa Information Commission.
6. The Goa Information Commission has held the petitioner guilty of furnishing incomplete, misleading and false information and has imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- which is liable to be deducted from the petitioner's salary from the month of August 2007. This order is under challenge. Mr. Lobo, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Goa Information Commission (hereinafter referred as “Commission”) has wrongly held that the petitioner provided incomplete and misleading information on the 3 points.
7. The Commission has with reference to question No. 1 held that the petitioner has provided incomplete and misleading information by giving the clarification above. As regards the point No. 1 it has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner has provided false information in stating that the seniority list is not available. It is not possible to comprehend how the Commission has come to this conclusion. This conclusion could have been a valid conclusion if some party would have produced a copy of the seniority list and proved that it was in the file to which the petitioner Information Officer had access and yet she said “Not Available”. In such circumstances it would have been possible to uphold the observation of the Commission that the petitioner provided false information in stating initially that the seniority list is not available.
8. As regards the requisition Nos. 2 & 3 by which the petitioner was called upon to give information as to why the post of Curator was not filled up by promotion and why the Librarian from the Engineering College was not considered for promotion, the petitioner had initially answered by stating that the information was “N.A” (Not Available). Thereafter, she had clarified by stating that it means “I don't know”. The Commission has initially observed in para. No. 13 that it does not see anything wrong in the petitioner's reply that she does not know the information because “P.I.O cannot manufacture the information”. However, in para. No. 14, the Commission has observed that the petitioner has not supplied a correct information because she corrected information on points No. 2 & 3. It can be recalled that the petitioner corrected the information by explaining that “Not Available” meant she does not know. It is not possible to accept the reasoning of the Commission. There is no substance in the observation that merely because the petitioner initially said “Not Available” and later on corrected her statement and said she does not know and the petitioner provided incomplete and incorrect information. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
“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;”
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question “why” which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
9. In this view of the matter, the order of the Commission appears to suffer from a serious error of law apparent on record and results in the miscarriage of justice. In the result, the impugned order is hereby set aside.
10. Rule is made absolute.
Petition allowed.
Alert