Case: Samir Sardana vs Army HQ
Facts
The Appellant filed an RTI application on 25th January 2019. In the application, the Appellant sought information on a copy of the FIR of an Army officer that tied a sentient on a jeep, name of the Investigating officer, date of commencement of the investigation, TOR copy of the investigation, certified copy of enquiry report, name, IC number and photo of officers that directed such investigation, provide a certified transcript of all wireless or walkie/talkie messages of the Army.
The CPIO had refused to provide the necessary information. The first appeal was filed on 13th March 2019 but the FAA was not on record. Hence, the CPIO had filed a Second appeal on 31st March 2019.
Arguments Advanced
The Appellant stated that it took more than 45 days to transfer the application and more than 60 days for the CPIO to respond. The Appellant also stated that even though there are several CIC orders stating that the PIO shouldn’t ask the citizen to prove his/her identity, the CPIO only entertained the RTI application of the Appellant after he showed his passport to the CPIO. After this, the application was transferred from one public authority to another which delayed the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant prayed for a penalty to be imposed on the CPIO.
The Appellant further added that he had filed written submissions to the CPIO on 7th April 2021 stating the reasons for being dissatisfied with its response. The Appellant also added that the CPIO didn’t respond to some of the questions asked by him in the RTI application.
Court’s Observations
The Chief Information Commission used the case of Samir Sardana vs Army Hq on January 18th 2021 in which the Appellant had a similar complaint. If the information sought by the Appellant this time was different from the information, he sought on January 18th 2021 the CPIO has to provide a proper response for it.
The Chief Information Commission also focused on the written submission given by the Appellant in which he clearly stated the reasons as to why the Appellant was not satisfied with the PIO’s response.
Court’s Decision
The Tribunal has not found any case of malafide from the CPIO due to which there is no reason to impose any sort of penalty. However, after careful consideration of the written submissions made by the Appellant, the CPIO needs to provide a better response to the Appellant.
The Chief Information Commission has directed the CPIO to provide a point-wise response to the Appellant 15 days after the order has been made. Hence, the appeal has been disposed of.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
