के ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दली, New Delhi – 110067

ितीय अपील संया/Second Appeal No. CIC/PAROI/A/2020/667271

Mr. T.V. Sundaresan … अपीलकता/Appellant

VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO …ितवादी/Respondent
Parliament of India
Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 01-07-2018 FA : 27-08-2018 SA : 31-03-2020

CPIO : 16-07-2018 FAO : 13-08-2018 Hearing : 24-11-2021

ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. The appellant seeking
information is as under:-
“25. In this scenario suo motto action and other action initiated by
Hon’ble Rajya Sabha Hon’ble Lok Sabha Hon’ble Apex Court RBI SEBI
Ministry Corporate affairs CAG etc. i.e. the Executive judiciary and
Legislature are being asked.
26. The Hon’ble Representatives of people and their Hon’ble
Secretariat's and their CPIOs may please inform the action taken if any,
suo motto and otherwise steps taken to ensure that the laws are not
violated and the fraud and corrupt are taken to task, the action proposed
to be taken etc. etc. considering that all of them have been elected to
office on their zero tolerance for corruption. A road map with milestones
and implementation schedules and responsibility centers etc. etc. may
also be forwarded”. Etc.
Page 1 of 6
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 16-07-2018 the information sought does not
pertain to the Secretariat and therefore, may be treated as NIL. Being
dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 27-08-2018
and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide
letter dated 13-08-2018 Upheld CPIO’s reply and disposed the appeal. He has
filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information
sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to
provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent,
Shri Vinay Shankar Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has
been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been
provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 01.07.2018.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 16.07.2018, they
have furnished a due reply to the appellant. He further submitted that the
appellant has not sought any specific and as per section 7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005,
an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought
unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and
after perusal of records, observes that very vague and non-specific information
has been sought by the Appellant in his RTI application. From the bare reading
of the RTI application itself it is clear that the appellant is raising large issues
which are being ignored alleging non- performance or wrong performance by
various regulatory authorities such as CAG, ICAI, Judiciary, etc, Further the
appellant alleged that since the respective public authorities/ Ministries are not
responding properly he is seeking the information from the Lok Sabha/ Rajya
Sabha directly. The Commission finds that the information sought by the
appellant is non- specific and does not relate to any identifiable document held
by the respondent in material form. Rather these are in the nature of situational
queries. The appellant is expecting the respondent to refer the RTI application to
the different ministries and to collect and compile the information from them.
But the CPIO is not supposed to make interpretation of general queries, to make
opinion and identify specific information or to create information; or to interpret
information; or or to furnish clarification; or to compile or collate information in
Page 2 of 6
a specific manner under the ambit of the RTI Act. The CPIO is only a
communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence,
he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material
therein and then supply it to him. Further the CPIO, Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha
Secretariat are the custodian of information related to Parliamentary procedure
and other related matters and hence cannot be expected to have all other
information.
8. The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 expects that the information sought
is specific and believed to be existing with the public authority in documented
or material form as such; which can be shared with the appellant as per the
provisions of the RTI Act. Answering to broad, multiple and general queries
and presumptive documents that should have been generated as per the
expectation of the appellant cannot be furnished under the provisions of the Act.
9. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information
u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”
In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in
2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors),
wherein it was held as under:
35 “A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information
which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is
also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor
required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant.
The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in
section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the
records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public
relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens.
But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any
obligation under the RTI Act.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah
Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868
OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f)
which provides:
Page 3 of 6
 “information” means any material in any form, including records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can
get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the
public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is
entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he
cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices,
circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material
which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under
law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only
such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under
any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the
petitioner in the application could not have been with the public
authority nor could he have had access to this information and
Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had
taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint
Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission
on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
“Section 2(f) -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; The definition cannot include within its
fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as
asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public
Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the
reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a
justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.
Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities
and cannot properly be classified as information.”
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why
which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for
Page 4 of 6
 a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to
communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or
not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a
requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the
domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as
information.”
10. The Commission also observes that the annual reports of the Central
Public Sector undertaking are presented annually to the Parliament through the
concerned Ministries. But various other reports believed to be generated in
compliance of various Acts, Rules guidelines etc., cannot be expected to be
quantified and identified by the CPIO under the provisions of the RTI Act,
2005. In this regard the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.
Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was
held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act
for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public
authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive
as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and
result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive
work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be
allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the
national development and integration, or to destroy the peace,
tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be
converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials
striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where
75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in
collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of
discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the
RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should
not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information
furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
11. It is apparent that the appellant is seeking suo motu action taken reports
taken by large number of public authorities such as Hon’ble Rajya Sabha,
Hon’ble Lok Sabha, Apex Court, RBI, CAG, Corporate Affairs etc., i.e. almost
every branch of Judiciary, executive and legislature for any impropriety and
illegality found in functioning in almost any public entity. His presumption that
since all Acts and rules are passed by the parliament, hence Rajya Sabha
Page 5 of 6
Secretariat should provide all such information which is enormous and not
possible within the framework of the RTI Act, 2005, Information sought are
non- specific and almost infinite without any clarity and specificity, hence such
information cannot be presumed to be in the custody of the Rajya Sabha
Secretariat. Mere fact that the public authorities are not responding properly
cannot be addressed through the RTI application to the Lok Sabha/ Rajya
Sabha Secretariat and has to be taken up by the appellant through appeals at
higher levels in the concerned public authorities. Therefore, the Commission is
satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI
application and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in
the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

नीरज कु मार गुा)

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु)
Information Commissioner (सू

दनांक / Date : 24-11-2021

Authenticated true copy
(अिभमािणतसयािपतित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)

Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO
Parliament of India
Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001

2. Mr. T. V. Sundaresan

Page 6 of 6