Mr. R.K Jain v. Department Of Legal Affairs Government Of India .

2. The Complainant filed RTI application/complaint on 19.10.2013 complaining among other things, that the CPIO, Mr. K. Ginkhan Thang has deliberately, mala fidely and persistently not provided the information in spite of the clear mandate of the RTI Act, even though the information sought was readily available with him and was not exempted under section 8 or 9 or any other provisions of the RTI Act, etc. The appellant prayed for imposing penalty on Shri K. Ginkhan Thang, CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Decision:

3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted two important issues in his complaint against the CPIO 1. the delay in sending the information and 2. denial of the information invoking section 7(9) of the RTI Act. After the First appellate authority denied the information under section 7(9), the appellant has got the letter from the CPIO offering him inspection of the record, which, complainant claims, was not warranted as per the FAA order and it was only a ploy by the respondent authority. Thus, it was contended that the CPIO has erred in sending this kind of letter to him after the FAA order. The appellant wrote back saying that he was not interested in inspection, and the relevant copies asked by him can be supplied.

4. The RTI application was filed on 19.10.2013 and CPIO replied on 21.11.2013. The CPIO mentioned in its order that the RTI application dated 19.10.2013, sent by speed post was received on 4.11.2013, thus the Commission found no delay in responding by the CPIO. Another significant part of the complaint was alleged mala fide denial of the information by the CPIO.

5. Section 20(1) of RTI Act, says that in case of mala fide denial of request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose penalty

6. First we have to examine whether there is a denial of information. Undoubtedly there is a response within time but information was not provided as the CPIO invoked first part of Section 7(9).

7. The number of RTI applications were around 14, each with several points. The CPIO might have thought it would be a big task and difficult to provide the information which has to be collected from different sections. In fact, the appellant was asking for copies of 14 RTI applications, files notings and responses to them, etc. which would not be more than 14 files, which cannot divert substantial resources of the public authority. From the representations and contentions of officers of Public Authority, the Commission noted a kind of confusion and stress among them as they felt it difficult to find appropriate answers to the 14 applications, which led to assume that Section 7(9) could be invoked.

8. The appellant being a leading lawyer and an expert RTI activist, with huge number of RTI applications, hundreds of appeals and dozens of judgments to his credit, his RTI applications sought information about many things. Some of his applications seek information such as: staff given to Attorney General of India, file opening registers of all the administrative sections and cash sections of the Department of Legal Affairs, implementation of pro active disclosures about foreign and domestic tours of ministers and officers of the rank of joint secretary and above and head of the departments, notings about seven letters written by him, notings of 13 RTI Applications filed by him earlier, list of computers and other equipments installed at the office of Attorney General of India, details of laptops provided to him, payments made for AMC etc, action taken on his letters referred etc, details about appointment of an advocate as representative of Union in a particular case, first page of his appeal referred, detail of implementation of some guidelines of DoPT, RTI applications received by various CPIOs and CAPIOs of the Department of Legal Affairs till now, etc. The officers from Respondent Authority represented that it was difficult to provide the responses to the RTI questions, which would be quite voluminous, as files sought pertain to several years, running into hundreds or thousands of pages. They said they were tense and very apprehensive of consequences for any of their responses and thought inspection would serve the purpose and whatever papers he wanted could be given copies thereof. Whereas the appellant sought copies first and then he would like to have inspection with the copies in his hand.

9. It appears that there is an element of reality in complainants contention that CPIO and other officers were confused. They were mixing his earlier RTI applications and present RTI application asking details of responses about earlier RTI applications. It cannot be said that they were unreasonable in fearing the possible size of record that they have to provide for inspection and copies thereof for earlier 14 RTI applications some of which refer to his earlier RTI applications, letters, representations, file notes about it etc. One of his earlier RTI application demands RTI applications filed in various offices of PIOs of Department of Legal Affairs till now which would certainly would be a very huge record.

10. Upon considering all the above issues and the number of RTI applications filed by the complainant before this Public Authority, the Commission does not find any mala fides behind invoking of a provision out of confusion. Even if some of the information sought can be given as per law, the big quantum and time consuming collection of it was feared to be a huge problem. The officers also expressed fear that any lapse any where would be projected as suppression or misleading or misrepresentation or denial leading to penalties under Section

11. The officers expressed their willingness to facilitate inspection of whole office and records and appellant was invited and informed about it many a time. In fact one of the reasons for this complaint is that after denying the information and getting it confirmed in first appeal, the office was inviting him to inspection, which complainant observed as reflection of wrongful intention. The Commission is of the opinion that offer of inspection by Public Information Office reflect positive response to provide access rather than mala fide intention to deny the information.

12. The complainant wanted all files with notings about 14 of his RTI applications but it is possible that PIO might have thought he should supply thousands of documents in earlier 14 RTI applications through this RTI application. The PIO has to understand that, they have to confine at present to this RTI application alone. This means only 14 files for which Section 7(9) cannot be invoked.

13. In the appeal on this matter, the Commission stated as follows: The Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish certified copies of information sought by appellant in response to his RTI application dt.19102013 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission recommends the appellant to have inspection and seek copies of papers if he thinks necessary and were not furnished earlier. The Commission also recommend the appellant not to consider it as suppression of records, which the officers were fearing about, if any document was not furnished to him in response to this order, as that could be sought during the inspection. With regard to his earlier RTI applications also the Commission would like to recommend the appellant to rationalize and minimize requirement of copies of documents to strictly relevant to the aspect of public interest so that the officers would not worry about the stress and time needed to collect huge amount of information. The Commission prefers to recommend both the respondents and appellant to have a coordinated approach in securing reasonable and only information required in public interest carefully avoiding personal information, the elements of complexity and problematic issues that are being feared to crop up at later point.

14. In view of the above the Commission finds no reason or necessity to initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO of respondent public authority and hence disposes off the complaint. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt.of INDIA Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi110001

2. Shri R.K.Jain, 1512B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi110003