Please find below details of an interesting
case heard on 23.01.2013 by Information Commissioner Mr Rajiv
Mathur.
I (Dr Mohammed Naved Khan) had sought certain information including a
video recording of a Fact Finding Inquiry (in which information seeker was himself present) conducted against former Vice
Chancellor of AMU Dr P K Abdul Azis on the orders of the President of
India on allegations of corruption.
It interesting to point out that even during
the hearing on 23.01.2013, I pointed out to the learned Information
Commissioner that the video which had been sought under RTI was in the custody of/accessible to the accused (i.e. Dr P K Abdul
Azis) while it was being denied under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI to the information
seeker. Further, events that happened much after the disposal
of the matter by the Appellate Authority i.e. registering of a regular case by Case No RC9(A)/2012, ACU-IV, New Delhi,
on 19.11.2012 by Anti Corruption Wing of CBI have been relied upon to deliver
judgement in a matter dating back to 06.06.2011 (RTI was filed on this
date!).
Most shockingly, neither the CPIO and nor the
Appellate Authority did ever mention CBI in any of the disposals but now inquiry
by CBI has been made the basis for denying the information.
Complete details of the case, including CIC
judgement are given below:
---------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL
INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club
Building (Near Post Office)
Old
JNU Campus
New
Delhi-110067
Tel:
+91-11-26105682
File
No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003901/RM
Appellant:
Dr Mohammad Naved Khan, Aligarh
Public
Authority: Aligarh Muslim University
Date
of Hearing: 23.01.2013
Date
of decision: 23.01.2013
Heard
today, dated 23.01.2013 through video conferencing.
Appellant
is present.
The
Public Authority is represented by Md Afzal Ali, CPIO along with Dr S. Karamat
Ali, AA, Council Section.
FACTS
Vide
RTI dt 6.6.11, appellant had sought information on five points relating to
video recording of the meetings of the 2nd Fact Finding Inquiry
Committee.
2.
CPIO/SO Council, vide letter dt 4.7.11, provided a point wise response.
3.
An appeal was filed on 7.7.11 pointing out that the information provided was
incomplete.
4.
AA vide order dt 2.8.11, provided some additional information and disposed of
the appeal.
5.
Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. The
appellant submitted that the denial of copies of CD by the CPIO was not correct
and wanted that copies be provided to him. The CPIO submitted that though the
enquiry has been completed by the MHRD, the CBI is now investigating the
matter.
DECISION
6.
The Commission finds that the process of investigation is not yet over as the
CBI is now investigating the matter. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
WP(C)16712/2006 (Surinderpal Singh Vs Union of India) has held that “Exemption
from disclosure of information can be claimed for any information which may
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders.” Following the ratio of above said judgement, the Commission upholds
the decision of the AA in not providing copies of the video recording.
The
appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv
Mathur)
Central
Information Commissioner
Authenticated
true copy forwarded to:
The
CPIO & Section Officer (RTI Cell)
O/o
the Registrar
Aligarh
Muslim University
Aligarh-202002
The
Deputy Registrar (Council) & FAA
O/o
the Councils Section & AA
Aligarh
Muslim University
Aligarh-202002
Dr.
Mohammad Naved Khan
Former
Member, AMU Court,
D/o
Business Administration
Faculty
of Management Studies & Research
Aligarh
Muslim University,
Aligarh-202002
(Raghubir
Singh)
Deputy
Registrar
.01.2013
-----------------------------------------------
Text of Second Appeal, RTI and replies of CPIO and Appellate
Authority are available at URL below in PDF format:
-----------------------------------------------
06.06.2011
CAPIO/DR (Legal)
AMU, Aligarh
Subject:
Application for information under Section 6(1) read with Section 7(1) of RTI
Act 2005
Please
refer to the Second Fact Finding Inquiry Committee (FFIC) ordered
by the President of India in her capacity as the Visitor of Aligarh Muslim
University (AMU) under Section 13(2) of the AMU Act 1920 with Mr Justice B A
Khan as its Chairman and Mr Justice A N Divecha as its Member.
Please
also refer to the fact that several of the meetings/hearings of the Second
FFIC were Video recorded.
With reference
to the above, under the section 6(1) and 7(1) of RTI, I may be provided
with/informed on the following:
1)
Breakup of the amount spent in Video recording of the said meetings/hearings
including the dates on which such meetings/hearings were held. Also provide
duration of each such meeting/hearing.
2)
Details of procedure adopted in assigning contract for Video recording of the
said meetings/hearings.
3)
Name of the entity and its complete address including name of the proprietor to
whom work of Video recording of the said meetings/hearings was
awarded/assigned.
4)
Provide digital copy of the Video recording of the said meetings/hearings.
5)
Name and designation of the officer/functionary who ordered the Video recording
of the said meetings/hearings together with facts and reasons. Also provide all
relevant file notings.
A
fee of Rs 10/- is deposited in the University vide Book No. 2 and R.No.185
dated 22.1.11. The original receipt is attached herewith.
[Dr Mohammed Naved Khan]
Department
of Business Administration
Faculty
of Management Studies & Research
Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh-202002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete RTI file can be downloaded from the following URL
in PDF format:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URGENT/RTI APPEAL
July,
7, 2011
Dr
S Karamat Ali
Deputy
Registrar (Councils)
AMU,
Aligarh-202002
Subject: Wilful/deliberate denial and
providing of misleading/incomplete information by the CPIO (Councils) liable to
be proceeded against under Sections 18(1), 19(1) and 20(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Ref:
1)
RTI application filed with CAPIO/DR (Legal) dated
06-06-2011.
2)
Reply by CPIO/Section Officer (Councils), AMU, Aligarh, vide ( C)/ 765 dated
4.07.2011.
Dear
Sir,
I
filed above referred RTI application with CAPIO, AMU, and have received an
incomplete/misleading reply which tantamounts to wilful denial of information by
CPIO, SO (Councils).
At
the outset I wish to point out that the note sheet related to the matter (as
clearly evident from document annexed with the RTI reply by CPIO) has been
prepared as an after thought after the filing of RTI application on 06.06.2011.
The
following may be noted with regard to the said reply by CPIO/SO (Councils):
Point 1:
The following may be noted:
a)
Dates on which the hearings that were video recorded have not been provided.
b)
Duration of each of the meetings/hearings have not been provided.
Point 2: The reply is blatantly misleading as
the information provided has been generated on 11.06.2011 after the receiving
of the RTI application on 06.06.2011. It is amply clear that the appended note
has been prepared in the light of the points raised in the instant RTI
application.
Point 3: The name of the proprietor and
address of the entity assigned the said videography work have not been
provided.
Point 4: The information has deliberately/wilfully
been denied by the CPIO. Further, the following may be noted in this regard:
(i). No cogent reasons/evidence have been
provided by the CPIO for denying the information and for invoking Section
8(1)(h) of RTI which is wholly inapplicable in the instant case.
(ii). The copies of the CDs of the Video
recordings have been handed over to AMU by M/s Indian Television Co. (ITV), a
Delhi based commercial organization.
(iii).
No
details have been provided as to how it would hamper the prosecution of
offenders and how they are likely to get away by the providing of said video
recordings of hearings which are in all probability accessible to them already.
(iv).
It
is to be noted that Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c
) no. 3114/2007- "13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the
Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being
a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly
construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right
itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it
would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders.
It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a
ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information
must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would
hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion
of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.
Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become
the haven for dodging demands for information.
(v). Further, Right to Information is a fundamental
right of citizens and the denial of information has to be backed by the strong
reasons. Sufficient reasons have not been advanced to show that the denial of
information is justified.
(vi).
A
rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should
receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the
Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the
authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions
on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption
provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority
supporting this view (See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B.
R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha
Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing
the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the
rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”
(vii).
The
preambular goal of RTI Act to ensure transparency & accountability has
been de facto liquidated by CPIO’s above decision.
(viii).
Denial
of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of
continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights.
Point 5:
The following may be noted:
(i). The CPIO has not provided the names
and designation of the officer/functionary who ordered the Video recording.
(ii). Facts and reasons for videography have
not been provided.
(iii).
File
notings have not been provided.
The
matter is of utmost public interest and importance as it relates to allegations
of corruption and other irregularities in AMU, an academic institution of
repute, taking note of which, the Hon’ble President of India, in her capacity
as the Visitor of AMU, ordered the said Fact Finding Inquiry to submit its
report within three (3) months. Further, in excess of Rs 80 Lakhs (Rupees
Eighty Lakhs) have already been spent by AMU, a publicly funded institution,
in the conduct of the Inquiry which lingered on for more than a year before any
report could be submitted.
In
the light of the above, I request that my application may be disposed of in
consonance with provisions of RTI Act to provide me required information
without any delay otherwise I will be free to proceed to the CIC, New Delhi,
with a complaint under relevant sections of the RTI Act 2005.
With
regards,
Sincerely,
(Dr Mohammed Naved Khan)
Former
Member, AMU Court
Department
of Business Administration
Faculty
of Management Studies & Research
Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh-202002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete RTI file can be downloaded from the following URL
in PDF format:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
