The Central Information Commission (CIC) have dismissed an RTI appeal, pointing out that the rate of deduction of donation in corona relief fund being already in public domain ,outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as the same is likely to caste immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
The appeal in question filed before the Information Commissioner Mr. Saroj Punhani resulted from an RTI application filed by the appellant, Mr. Jagminder Aggarwal , seeking the CPIO to intimate the information as to whether deduction of Donation in Corona Relief Fund , is to be allowed at the rate of 100% or 50% , for income tax purpose.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2021, to which no order of the FAA’s is available on record. Later, on 17.06.2021, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant stating that the information sought in his RTI application, is already available in public domain, and that he may refer the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax Rules, 1962 available on official website, to seek replies of his queries.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal wherein, based on a perusal of the facts on record, the Commission observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, and that it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought for a clarification by the CPIO, which does not constitute as “information” as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The CIC referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act ,wherein the apex court had held that a public authority is not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences or making of assumptions, neither to provide `advice’ or `opinion’ to an applicant, nor to obtain and furnish any `opinion’ or `advice’ to him or her. The court had further stated that 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.
In the dismissal of the appeal, the observations of the Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009),as well as that of the Bombay high court in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission, was relied upon, wherein the commission highlighted the judicial observation that “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”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
