The primary mandate of the Central Information Commission (CIC) is to inquire into the complaints and second appeals relating to access to ‘information’. But, at times, moved with the Applicant’s plight and fight from pillar to post for settlement of his information and non-information related grievances, CIC has ventured to address the Applicant’s non-information related grievances also and while doing so, given directions for remedial measures.
Some of the CIC’s directions in non-information related grievances:
In the case of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the Applicant stated that he had been allotted a plot under the 20 point programme during 1988-89, but, it had been annexed by the Revenue Department. On noticing that the Applicant was a poor and disabled man, CIC directed the Deputy Chief Minister of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to consider and inquire into the issue of taking away of plots under the 20-point formula and submit the action taken report to it and also strongly recommended that relief be provided to the Applicant[1].
In the case of Mr. Charanjit Singh Bhatia[2] Mr. Bhatia had an issue with regard to non-receipt of pension by his wife. In its order, CIC, interalia, directed the Councillor of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Ms. Shobha Vijender, to explain to her political party, the Mayor, voters and to the CIC as to why, an ineligible applicant was recommended for pension in violation of norms and to assure that ineligible candidates will not be recommended in future.
In Mr. Sher Singh Rawat’s case[3], Mr. Rawat was the Director of a company, Multiserve India Private Limited and had filed an RTI Application seeking information from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). In its order, CIC examined the various provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and dwelt upon whether there were any violations of the EPF Act on the part of Mr. Sher Singh Rawat’s company.
Propriety of CIC’s directions:
When the matters of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Ms. Shobha Vijender and Mr. Sher Singh Rawat reached the Delhi High Court, the Court observed as under:
(a) Mr. Rajendra Prasad’s case:
CIC had examined the dispute which was outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The limited scope of examination by CIC was:
- whether the information sought for by the Applicant was provided to him;
- if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified;
- whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and
- whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted.
- In addition, CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act[4].
(b) Ms. Shobha Vijender’s case:
The directions of the CIC are outside the ambit of Section 19(8) of the RTI Act[5].
(c) Mr. Sher Singh Rawat’s case:
CIC had to merely examine whether the information sought ought to have been made available under the Act or, whether it was exempted under the Act[6].
Conclusion:
In the RTI Applications and during the hearings before the CIC, Applicants often narrate the deprivations suffered by them on account of the alleged illegal and arbitrary decision making of the officials of the public authority. However, under the RTI Act, a citizen has only the right to access information and hence, any direction of the CIC with respect to a citizen’s non-information related disputes with a public authority, notwithstanding the bonafide intentions behind it, will be without jurisdiction, particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority[7].
[1] Rajender Prasad Vs. BDO(Alipore), GNCTD, CIC/SA/A/2015/001913 dated 2.3.2016
[2] Charanjeet Singh Bhatia Vs. Director of Local Bodies, GNCTD, CIC/SA/A/2015/001343 dated 13.5.2016
[3] Sher Singh Rawat v. PIO, EPFO, CIC/EPFOG/A/2017/311679, dated 17.05.2017
[4] Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rajender Prasad, WP (C) 10676/2016 & CM No.43417/2016 dated 30.11.2017
[5] Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017
[6] Sher Singh Rawat Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., WP (C) and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017
[7] Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 dated 3.9.2013
42 Comments
Comments are closed.