that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant
:
Mr. Rajbir Singh
S/o Shri Kashi Ram
V + P – Gadhi,
Distt. – Baghpat, U. P.
Respondent
:
Dr. Ashok Rawat
Dy. Health Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road,
Delhi
RTI application filed on
:
18/02/2009
PIO replied
:
17/03/2009, 18/06/2009
First appeal filed on
:
17/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order
:
20/05/2009
Second Appeal received on
:
18/08/2009
The Appellant wanted following information related assets and liabilities of DHO Shahdara, North
Zone, Mr. Ashok Rawat:
S. No.
Information Sought
Reply of the PIO
1.
Monthly salary
Not given
Information provided by the PIO (Shahdara North Zone) dated 25/05/2009.
2.
Details of children with age, number of school
goers children with details of their monthly
school fee and other expenditures and name of
the school.
It did not cover under Section 2(f) of RTI Act,
2005.
3.
Details of transportation if any, was availed by
the children.
As above.
Information provided by the PIO (Town Hall) dated 18/06/2009.
4.
Whether he was living in his own house or in
Govt. accommodation. If he was living in rented
accommodation then copy of the rent slip.
The information sought by the Appellant
through
this
point,
being
secret
documents/information which could not be
disclosed in the absence of a general or special
order, under provisions of GIO (S.O.114) under
rule (1) of rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) rules 1964
clause 110 of the “Manual of office procedure”,
rule 11 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as the
information sought covered under Section 8 (j)
of the RTI Act, 2005.
5.
Details of his immovable property with details
of immovable property which was in the name
of his wife and children.
As above.
6.
Details of immovable property which was
purchased after going his service in MCD in
Delhi.
As above.
7.
Details of property which was disclosed by him Not give.
Page 2
at the time of joining.
8.
Details of anything more than Rs.10000/- which
was purchased by him during his service, with
date when the appropriate disclosure was made
to the department & the same was duly assessed
in his assessment of financial year.
Not give.
9.
Whether the Govt. vehicle was being utilized for
personal use or not.
Not give.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA (Shahadra NorthZone) in its order directed the PIO/DHO (Shahadra North Zone) to give the
reply of point no. 2 & 3 to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 06 October 2009:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajbir Singh;
Respondent: Mr. S.C.Gupta, Officer Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Ravinder Kumar;
The PIO Dy. Health Officer, Shahdara North Zone, Dr. Ashok Rawat had initially refused to
give any information on 17/03/2009 contending that what was sought is not information as defined
under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The reply was clearly wrong, the queries at no. 1,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 are
clearly information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. After the FAA’s order PIO CED Mr.
Ravinder Kumar replied to the Appellant on points 5,6 & 7 on 18/06/2009 that information could not
be provided under Rule 11 of CCS Rules and also claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the
RTI Act. He had also given no explanation how Section 8(1)(j) would apply. The Commission has
already ruled on the matter of providing information on the assets held by a public servant in its
decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/001436/4247 dated 23 July 2009:
The Commission can allow denial of information only based on the exemptions listed under
Section 8 (1) of the act. The PIO has claimed that the information should not be disclosed since it is
exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j).
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
"information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information:"
To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1.
It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common
language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and
not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to
Institutions, organisations or corporates. ( Hence we could state that Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be
applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.).
The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the
information must have some relationship to a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from
Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information
about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation,
all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been
obtained in the pursuit of a public activity.
Page 3
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an
individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade on the
privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain
safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information from
Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is
routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,-
cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few
exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority
while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping. Any other
exceptions would have to be specifically justified. Besides the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that
even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. If
people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details it is only logical that the
details of assets of those who are public servants must be considered to be disclosable. Hence the
exemption under Section 8(1) (j) cannot be applied in the instant case.
Hence the information sought by the Appellant at query 1,4,5,6,7,8 & 9 would have to be provided.”
Commission’s Decision of 06 October 2009
:
“The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. Ravinder Kumar will provide complete information after obtaining whatever assistance
he needs form any other officer to the Appellant before 25 October 2009.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it was apparent that the
then PIO Dr. Ashok Rawat was guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
Hence a showcause notice was issued to him, and he was directed give his reasons to the Commission
to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him on 06 November 2009 at 11.30am alongwith
his written submissions.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 06 November 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Dr. Ashok Rawat the then PIO and Health Officer;
The Respondent had been asked about the details of his salary and assets. He responded fairly
promptly that this is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This was clearly
meant to deny the information. After the order of the FAA on 20/05/2009 he transferred the RTI
Application to the holder of the information Director Personnel. He now admits that he should have
transferred the RTI application initially to Director Personnel since he did not hold the information. He
should have transferred this RTI application within 5 days of receipt i.e. by 23/03/2009. Instead he
transferred the RTI application on 25/05/2009. There is no possible reason for this delay and
considering the fact that the information sought was about him. It appears this may have been done
deliberately.
The Commission sees this as a fit case for levying penalty since there is not reasonable cause
for this huge delay in supplying the information. Since the delay is of 60 days the Commission levies
the penalty at the rate of Rs.250/- per day of delay amounting to Rs.250 X 60 days = Rs.15000/- under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failure to supply information within the mandated 30 days.
Page 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty
on Dr. Ashok Rawat the then PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 60
days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Dr. Ashok Rawat for Rs. 15,000/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of
Rs.15,000/- from the salary of Dr. Ashok Rawat and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s
Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to
Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information
Commission, 2
nd
Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at
the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Dr. Ashok Rawat and remitted by the
10
th
of every month starting from December 2009. The total amount of Rs.15000 /- will be remitted by
10
th
of February, 2010.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 November 2009
1-
Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2.
Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)

After judges, babus' assets come under RTI

After judges, babus' assets come under RTI
Viju B, TNN, 8 January 2010, 02:04am IST
MUMBAI: After politicians and judges of Supreme Court, now the assets of babus have been prised open to public scrutiny. In a landmark order, the Central Information Commission has said that disclosure of information such as assets of a public servant, routinely collected by the public authority, should be made available to the public under the Right to Information Act.
Passing the order in a case involving an officer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi noted that such disclosure could not be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual and therefore, it should be made public under the Act.
With the ruling that disclosure of assets by a babu is no longer a matter just between him and his superiors, officers have been put on par with politicians as well as judges of Supreme Court who recently, bowing to pressure, agreed to let people peek into their material possessions.
The case came up for hearing with CIC after an RTI applicant's query asking for details of assets and liabilities of the deputy health officer of MCD was rejected by both the PIO and the appellate authority. UP resident Rajbir Singh had asked for details of immovable property declared by Ashok Rawat, deputy health officer with MCD. He had also asked for details of assets which the officer had purchased for more than Rs 10,000 during his service with date of disclosure made to the department. But both the PIO and first appellate authority rejected the query under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Information can be exempted under this section if it relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

When the case came up for hearing, the CIC said that to qualify for this exemption, the information must be of a personal nature. "Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for `personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity," the order said.
The CIC said there will only be a few exceptions to this rule, possibly relating to information obtained by a public authority by using extraordinary powers such as through a raid or phone-tapping. "Any other exceptions would have to be specifically justified," the CIC order said.
The commission also quoted the Supreme Court order which had ruled that even people who aspire to be public servants by getting elected have to declare their property details. "If people who aspire to be public servants must declare their property details, it is only logical that the details of assets of those who are public servants should be be disclosed. Hence, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied in this case," Gandhi said.
City-based RTI activists welcomed the order. "This will usher in greater transparency and we hope citizens will use this as an opportunity to expose corruption in the system," said Bhaskar Prabhu, convener of Mahiti Adhikar Manch.

Sources said the order was prompted by the recognition that declarations of assets by officers was not serving much purpose since the superiors expected to vet the disclosures for unusual increases were not discharging their brief because of peer affinity. CIC reckons that putting the matter in public domain will help, and act as a deterrent.

HC brings Games panel, IOA, Sanskriti under RTI

HC brings Games panel, IOA, Sanskriti under RTI
Abhinav Garg / TNN, 8 January 2010, 02:29am IST
NEW DELHI: In a verdict of far reaching consequence, the Delhi High Court (HC) has considerably expanded the scope of the Right to Information Act.
Asking the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), the Commonwealth Games Organising Commitee (OC) and the upmarket Sanskriti School to shed opacity, set up an office to disseminate information and depute a public information officer (PIO), justice S Ravindra Bhat on Thursday brought them under the ambit of the transparency Act.
The move is expected to open the floodgates of pointed RTI queries directed against these three bodies, seeking information about their management, grants and administration. The judgement will have an impact in injecting accountability and answerability not just in IOC and OC, but in all sports federations.
Justice Bhat chiefly relied upon the fact that all the three non-government and autonomous organisations recieved "substantial financing'' from the central government, that is from public funds. "The RTI Act recognizes that non-state actors may have responsibilities of disclosing information which would be useful and necessary for the people they serve as it furthers the process of empowerment, assures transparency and makes democracy responsive and meaningful,'' HC observed, saying this is the reason why all the three organisations are answerable under the Act.

Justice Bhat also dismissed the argument that absence of government control over an organisation allows it relief from accountability, holding it to be irrelevant to decide whether they are a public authority or not.
The court conceded that the school and the two sports federations were autonomous and free from government control, but pointed out that for smooth functioning, these bodies were either seeking huge amounts from the government or concession of one form or other.
For example, in IOA's case the court agreed it noticed no state or public involvement in its day-to-day functioning but noted how IOA is "the national face of the Olympic movement in India..its word determines the fate of the sport and sportsmen..and its approval is essential for any sport in India to be part of the movement.''
Relying on balance sheets provided to it by the central government, the HC also reminded the association how it is funded by the government when its athletes and delegates travel anywhere in the country and abroad.
Similarly, the OC's contention it was a temporary body in existence for the limited purpose of organising the 2010 Games, failed to move the court. Instead, the judge said the central government had committed a sum of Rs 767 crore to it (out of which nearly 350 crore was paid) due to which a citizen had the right to know how its being utilized.
As regards Sanskriti School, the HC agreed with the reasoning of the Central Information Commision that on account of it recieving grants to the tune of Rs 24 crore from various central ministeries, concessional land in prime area of Delhi, it ought to be treated as a "public authority'' under the RTI Act.
All the three organisations had seperately challenged the ruling of the CIC declaring them to be under the ambit of the RTI Act.
PRIVATE BODIES?
* Sanskriti school recieved Rs 24 crore by way of grants from the HRD ministry, customs department and Reserve Bank of India.
* Union urban development ministry granted it 7.67 acre plot in Chanakyapuri at a token annual rent of Rs 2 only
* Organising Commitee of CW Games had demanded Rs 1780 crore. Govt cleared 767 crore. Rs 350 crores already paid out of public funds.
* Grants to the tune of sevral lakhs recieved by IOA from the government every year since 1995, according to audit reports show.