- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition challenges a part of an order dated 7-9-2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Ministry of Finance to appoint a single Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for the entire Ministry or to nominate one of the existing CPIOs from its various departments as the CPIO for the Ministry. The background to the CIC order involves an RTI application filed by the respondent seeking information related to a newspaper item published in the Hindustan Times on 16-3-2010, which depicted the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh being presented with a garland made of one thousand rupee currency notes. The Ministry of Finance returned the RTI application on the ground that no CPIO was appointed for the Ministry as a whole. It is undisputed that the information sought has already been supplied to the respondent. The petitioner challenges only the CIC’s direction regarding the appointment of a single CPIO for the Ministry of Finance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Information Commission had jurisdiction to direct the Ministry of Finance to appoint a single CPIO for the entire Ministry, notwithstanding that it comprises multiple departments each having their own CPIOs.
- Whether the Ministry of Finance’s existing practice of having a Nodal Officer who receives RTI applications and forwards them to the respective departmental CPIOs complies with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Ministry of Finance is bifurcated into five departments as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules under clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India: Department of Economic Affairs, Department of Expenditure, Department of Revenue, Department of Disinvestment, and Department of Financial Services.
- The Ministry has a Nodal Officer who receives all RTI applications and marks them to the concerned departmental CPIOs for processing in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005.
- The CIC had no jurisdiction to issue the direction requiring a single CPIO for the entire Ministry.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Under the provisions of Section 5(1) read with Sections 19(8)(a)(ii) and (iv) along with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the power to issue directions such as the one challenged.
- The CIC is empowered to administer the provisions of the RTI Act and issued the direction to facilitate receipt of information by the applicant.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the administrative structure of the Ministry of Finance, which is divided into five departments, each with its own CPIO. It noted the existing system where a Nodal Officer receives RTI applications and forwards them to the relevant departmental CPIOs for processing. The court observed that the CIC’s direction to have a single CPIO for the entire Ministry was not appropriate given this structure. Instead, the court issued a set of directions to streamline the RTI application process: the Ministry must publicize the Nodal Officer’s name, who will receive all RTI applications and identify the relevant department(s) to forward the applications to the concerned CPIO(s). If the information sought pertains to multiple departments, copies will be supplied by all relevant CPIOs to avoid delay. The Nodal Officer must communicate to the applicant the details of the concerned CPIO to facilitate further communication. Applications not indicating the concerned CPIO will initially be dealt with by the Nodal Officer. These directions effectively replace the CIC’s impugned order.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is disposed of with the court setting aside the CIC’s direction for a single CPIO for the Ministry of Finance. Instead, the court mandated a procedural framework involving a Nodal Officer and departmental CPIOs to handle RTI applications efficiently.
The direct effect is that the Ministry of Finance will continue to operate with multiple departmental CPIOs coordinated by a Nodal Officer, ensuring proper administration of RTI requests without the need for a single CPIO for the entire Ministry. No new precedent was established beyond the procedural directions issued.
[Order]. - This writ petition seeks to assail that part of an order dated 7-9-2012, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby, a direction has been issued to the petitioner/Ministry of Finance to appoint one CPIO for the Ministry of Finance or in the alternative to nominate any one of the CPIOs, who are presently functioning, as such, in the various departments under the Ministry of Finance as the CPIO for the Ministry of Finance. In other words, the purport of the direction issued is that the Ministry of Finance should have in place only one CPIO notwithstanding the fact that it has several departments functioning within its fold.
2. This order came to be passed in the background of the fact that, the respondent evidently had filed an application with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to seek information with regard to a newspaper item which got published in the Hindustan Times, on 16-3-2010, depicting therein, that the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, was presented with a garland made of thousand rupee currency notes.
3. Apparently, this application was returned on the ground that there was no CPIO, appointed for the Ministry of Finance.
4. It is not in dispute before me, as noticed in the first order of this court that the information sought has already been supplied to the respondent. What is presently troubling the petitioner before me is the direction, to which reference has been made by me, hereinabove.
5. Ms. Ritika, who appears for the petitioner submits that, the Ministry of Finance as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules framed under clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India is bifurcated into five (5) departments. These being :
Department of Economic Affairs; Department of Expenditure; Department of Revenue; Department of Disinvestment; and Department of Financial Services.
6. The learned counsel submits that Ministry of Finance has a Nodal Officer, who receives all RTI applications, which are thereafter marked to the CPIO of the concerned department for being processed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act).
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the CIC, had no jurisdiction to issue a direction of kind which has been issued and assailed in the writ petition.
8. Mr. Sachdeva on the other hand says that under the provisions of Section 5(1) read with Section 19(8)(a)(ii) and (iv) along with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC has necessary power to issue such like directions.
9. It is Mr. Sachdeva’s submission that the CIC has been invested with the power to administer the provisions of the RTI Act and therefore, in order to facilitate the receipt of information by a querist such a direction was issued.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, present petition can be disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) Ministry of Finance, Government of India will duly publicise the name of the Nodal Officer, who will receive RTI applications.
(ii) The Nodal Officer on receipt of any RTI application will process the same to ascertain as to the department to which the RTI application pertains.
(iii) On completion of this exercise, the application received by the Nodal Officer will be marked to the CPIO of the concerned department.
(iv) In case the information pertains to more than one department, photocopies of the information would be supplied to CPIOs of all such departments so that there is no delay in receipt of information by the querist.
(v) The Nodal Officer on receipt of the information and on processing the same, as indicated above, will immediately write to the querist, indicating to him, the CPIO of the concerned department to whom his application is marked. The return communication of the Nodal Officer shall, set out, the name, address and telephone number of the said CPIO, to facilitate exchange of future communication between the two, if found necessary.
(vi) Needless to say, if any application is preferred by a querist, which does not indicate the name of the concerned CPIO, these will be entertained in the first instance by the Nodal Officer and thereafter dealt with, in accordance with the directions, issued hereinabove.
11. The impugned order of the CIC is thus supplanted with the directions issued by this court.
12. Mr. Sachdeva says that the directions will meet the concerns of the respondent herein.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Alert