Fact-finding report denied as confidential!

Ms Supriya Kumari filed an RTI application asking for: action taken on her representation to Minister Shri Y.S. Chaudhary regarding the transfer of her husband and financial and administrative irregularities of CEL. On point (iv) She wanted the copy of the complete report of Fact- Finding Committee, and actions taken by the DSIR. The CPIO denied the information on point no. 4, under Section 8 (1)(i) of the RTI Act.

FAA directed that information to be provided to the appellant within 30 days free of cost saying if respondent has valid reason that should be explained to appellant. Thereafter, deemed CPIO, replied that the Fact Finding Committee report, forms part of the confidential communication, which has taken place between DSIR and its legal advisor/counsel and therefore, the same cannot be provided under the RTI Act. DPIO added that information sought is likely to prejudicially affect the scientific and economic interest of DSIR, and also contains the personal information of third parties and disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy, and exempted under section 8 (1)(a), (b) & (j).

Appellant contended that the Fact Finding Committee (FFC) was constituted on the instructions of MoS (S&T and ES) Shri Y.S. Chowdary asking to submit the report to him, hence, to say that the Fact Finding Committee (FFC) was constituted on the instructions of Cabinet Secretariat, was false. He said that the report was not cabinet paper at all and DPIO did not comply with FAO.

The appellant’s husband for whom she filed this RTI, said that report of Fact Finding Committee, cannot be considered as a Cabinet paper, as it was no placed before the Union Cabinet to discuss or decide. Admittedly, the Fact Finding Committee has been constituted on the instructions of the Minister and that Fact Finding Committee submitted its report to the Cabinet Secretariat, but as per the definition of ‘Information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI ACT, all papers / reports etc. of all departments have to be shared with the Citizen seeking that report, unless they are specifically exempt from disclosure by any exception clause, with proper justification.

He further added that the information sought by his wife-appellant was related to administrative irregularities and misappropriation of public money by some of the officials of Central Electronics Limited (CEL), and allegations were based on CAG Audit Para IR 2014-16 and also an article published in the magazine 'Telecom Live', a serious matter of corruption which cannot be brushed aside by simple denial of RTI application which clearly shows that some persons at DSIR are trying to hide the corrupt activities of the Central Electronics Limited (CEL) and promoting corruption.

The Deemed PIO said that in compliance of CIC order in a different case, they provided FFC Report after blocking certain paragraphs. The officer reiterated that it was confidential, disclosure would prejudice interests of DSIR, and contain personal information.

Though CPIO opined to give information but deemed PIO did not agree. Then FAA ordered the CPIO to provide the copy of report. Then again CPIO wrote to DPIO to provide the information. He totally failed to explain how the Fact Finding committee report will fall under category of exemption under Section 8(1)(b) or (i) or (j) of the RTI Act. Then DPIO pleaded commercial confidence under section 8 (1)(d). The Commission finds that Mr. Sarkar was invoking exemption clauses one after the other without applying his mind at all.

Upon perusal of the records, correspondence of CPIO to Mr Sarkar, appellant’s contention, FAA’s order, oral contention of CPIO and DPIO, the Commission finds that DPIO does not have any inclination to give the complete copy of Fact Finding Committee Report, and he went on harassing the appellant by raising one or the other excuses. The Commission gave repeatedly several opportunities to reconcile, study the Report, try to apply mind, bring justification for any denial, separate the core point of commercial confidence if any, explain the same to the Commission, etc, but simply DPIO went on consuming the time but tried to hide the complete report.

On the directions of the Commission DPIO produced the report before the Commission. The Commission studied the entire report and found nothing that can be considered as commercially confidential information that could be hidden from the appellant. DPIO is the officer who issued two OMs, and response about which the appellant was seeking. He has blocked names, dates and several paragraphs pertaining to allegations, without giving any reason to the appellant, First appellate authority, to his CPIO and to the Commission. He did not care to heed the advice of CPI). He did not even bother to comply with the orders of the FAA. The appellant’s contention that Mr. Sarkar is deeply interested in keeping certain parts of the report as secret, appear to have some merits. DPIO’s changing contentions frequently proved that point.

A Fact-Finding Committee report cannot be considered as secret or confidential etc. generally. Commission directed the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO together, to study the entire report, segregate the paragraph if they are satisfied that it might attract any other exemption and provide all the pages of complete Report, giving reasons for holding why a particular paragraph was hidden, but provide all other parts in form of certified copies, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The Commission directed DPIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed and as his explanation was not satisfactory Rs 5000 penalty was imposed. (Based on CIC decision in Supriya Kumari v DSIR CIC/DoSIR/A /2018/104889 on 13.9.2018)