2020 (6) TMI 58 - Commission - Central Excise

CIC Orders Reassessment of RTI Request, Stresses CPIO's Duty for Timely and Effective Information Sharing.

The CIC concluded the appeal by directing the Respondent to reassess the matter and furnish a comprehensive response to the Appellant within a specified ... Duty of CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response - onus on CPIO/Public Authority under Section 19(5) to justify denial of information - requirement to specify grounds for denial under Section 8(1) - obligation to assist information seekers and courteous behaviour of PIOs - penal accountability of CPIO for failure or dereliction - directions to re examine and furnish information on fresh consideration - sensitisation and training of officials for effective discharge of RTI dutiesDuty of CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response - obligation to assist information seekers and courteous behaviour of PIOs - The response furnished by the CPIO/FAA was unsatisfactory and failed to explain the factual position clearly and cogently to the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the CPIO/FAA did not discharge the statutory duty to supply a clear, cogent and precise reply. The RTI Act and judicial authorities require the CPIO to apply mind, analyse the material and either disclose the information or give clear grounds for nondisclosure. The Commission observed that maximum assistance must be afforded to information seekers and referred to administrative guidance on courteous behaviour and help to applicants. The Respondent conceded that the factual position had not been explained to the appellant but undertook to provide a self contained, clear response.CPIO/FAA faulted for unsatisfactory reply; respondent directed to provide a clear, cogent and precise point wise response explaining the updated factual status to the appellant.Onus on CPIO/Public Authority under Section 19(5) to justify denial of information - requirement to specify grounds for denial under Section 8(1) - penal accountability of CPIO for failure or dereliction - The denial or withholding of information was not justified and the CPIO/Respondent failed to establish any exemption under Section 8(1). - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted that under Section 19(5) the onus lies on the CPIO to prove denial was justified. Neither the CPIO nor the respondent could show that disclosure would attract any exemption under Section 8(1). The Commission relied on extant judicial dicta emphasising that a public authority must show specific justification for refusal and that mere pendency of related proceedings is not by itself a ground for denial. The matter was therefore not shown to be covered by any claimed exemption.Denial of information not justified; information concerned must be furnished unless a valid exemption is specifically established.Directions to re examine and furnish information on fresh consideration - sensitisation and training of officials for effective discharge of RTI duties - The Commission remanded the matter for fresh consideration and directed the Public Authority to re examine and communicate the updated factual position within a specified time; and to undertake sensitisation of concerned officials. - HELD THAT: - Having found the existing response inadequate and no valid exemption established, the Commission instructed the respondent to re examine the files and provide a self contained, point wise explanation of the updated factual status to the appellant. The Commission also directed the Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to familiarise and sensitize officials about RTI obligations so as to ensure effective compliance in future.Matter remanded for fresh consideration; respondent directed to supply the clarified response within 15 days and to undertake periodic sensitisation/training of officials.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed: the Commission found the CPIO/FAA's reply unsatisfactory and that no exemption justified withholding; the Public Authority is directed to re examine the matter and furnish a clear, point wise explanation of the updated factual status to the appellant within 15 days and to conduct periodic sensitisation of officials regarding RTI obligations. Issues involved:Failure to provide satisfactory response to RTI application; Justification for denial of information under RTI Act; Duties and responsibilities of CPIO under RTI Act; Compliance with provisions of RTI Act by CPIO; Providing assistance to RTI applicants.Analysis:1. Failure to provide satisfactory response to RTI application:The Appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity in the response provided by the Respondent regarding the status of SCNs issued against him and the issuance of OIO. The Commission observed that the CPIO/ FAA did not provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant, emphasizing the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent, and precise responses to information seekers as per the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission referred to various judgments highlighting the pivotal role of the PIO in enforcing the implementation of the Act and the onus on the CPIO to justify any denial of information under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.2. Justification for denial of information under RTI Act:The Commission emphasized that to deny information under exemptions mentioned in Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, the Respondent must provide justification or establish reasons for claiming such exemptions. Reference was made to a judgment where it was held that a specific clause under Section 8 (1) must be cited to deny information. The onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified was placed on the CPIO during appeal proceedings as per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005.3. Duties and responsibilities of CPIO under RTI Act:The Commission highlighted the obligations of CPIOs to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act and to provide maximum assistance to RTI applicants for the flow of information. Various judgments were cited to underscore the responsibility of CPIOs in supplying information and the consequences of default or dereliction in their duties. The Commission instructed the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a clear, cogent, and precise response to the Appellant within a specified timeframe.4. Compliance with provisions of RTI Act by CPIO:The Commission stressed the need for CPIOs to apply their minds, analyze the material before them, and either disclose the information sought or provide grounds for non-disclosure. It was noted that the CPIO failed to justify their position on how the disclosure of information would contravene any provisions under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission directed the Respondent to convene conferences/seminars to sensitize officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act for effective discharge of duties.5. Providing assistance to RTI applicants:The Commission referred to an Office Memorandum emphasizing the responsibility of public authorities and PIOs to not only furnish information but also provide necessary help to information seekers. The directive was given to the Respondent Public Authority to ensure the provision of maximum assistance to RTI applicants as required under the RTI Act, 2005.In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by instructing the Respondent to re-examine the matter and provide a detailed response to the Appellant within a specified timeframe, while also emphasizing the need for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act and the duties of CPIOs in facilitating the flow of information to RTI applicants.