Divya Prakash Sinha, IC:—
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding opinion polls/election surveys on State Legislative Assembly Elections for the States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Goa broadcasted by India Today, Times Now (English), Aaj Tak, ABP (Hindi), CNN News 18 (English Poll of Polls) etc. on 31st January 2017.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:—
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Not present.
Appellant stated that the information sought was to know if the election surveys broadcasted was in consonance with the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters framed by ECI. He further stated that the information has been malafidely denied to him to cover up the conduct of the channels and parties, as it may have involved incidences of financial irregularities. He insisted that the Respondent office can very well obtain this information from these channels as no provision in the Cable TV Regulations of 1995 prevents them from doing so.
DECISION
Commission observes from the nature of information sought that Appellant has based his queries on speculative aspects of election surveys and opinion polls. The queries of RTI Application are mostly in an academic or research oriented nature and even seek interpretation of the CPIO. CPIO's reply dated 08.03.2017 states that there is no pre-censorship of the content telecast on private satellite channels. This would also imply that expertise of psephologists, sample size and methodology used for election survey by private channels is not controlled by the Respondent office. Even further, Appellant's apprehension regarding the intellect and expertise of psephologists cannot be expected to be clarified by the CPIO under RTI Act.
Notwithstanding, in the spirit of RTI Act, Commission deems it appropriate to direct the CPIO to provide available information in a para-wise manner on paras (7), 7(b), (8), 8(a), 8(aa) as these pertain to information which may be available with the Respondent office in the form of records. In the event, information is not available on either of these paras, CPIO is directed to categorically state the same against that para in his reply.
Further, as regards information sought on paras (1), (1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (4)(a), (5), CPIO shall take note of Section 2(f) of RTI Act which stipulates as under:
“….“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../”
Accordingly, CPIO is directed to provide available information on paras (1), (1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (4)(a), (5) if it can be accessed from the private channels under any law for the time being in force as stipulated in Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In the event, there is no existing law under which Respondent office can access the information on any of the paras, the same should be categorically stated against that para in the CPIO reply.
No relief is ordered for information sought on paras 6, 7(a) as it is in the form of clarification requiring interpretation of the CPIO.
The above directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report be duly sent to the Commission.
Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. CPIO is directed to send his explanation in this regard to the Commission within 7 days receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.