CentralInformationCommission,NewDelhiFileNo.CIC/SH/A/2014/000009

RighttoInformationAct2005UnderSection(19)

Dateofhearing

Dateofdecision

:

:

13thMarch2014

18thMarch2014

NameoftheAppellant : ShriCJKarira.PlotNo.26,RoadNo.1,BalamraiSociety,MahendraHills,Secunderabad500026

NameofthePublicAuthority : CentralPublicInformationOfficer,UniqueIdentificationAuthorityofIndia,2NdFloor,Tower1,JeevanBharatiBuilding,ConnaughtCircus,NewDelhi110001

TheAppellantwaspresentattheNICStudio,Hyderabad.

OnbehalfoftheRespondents,thefollowingwerepresent:

1. ShriShrishKumar,ADG.

2. ShriShambhuChoubey,Assistant.

InformationCommissioner : ShriSharatSabharwal

ThiscasepertainstoanRTIapplicationdated27.9.2013,filedbytheAppellantto

UniqueIdentificationAuthorityofIndia(UIDAI),seekinginformationregardingsharingof

data,concerningUIDcards,heldbythepublicauthority.TheAppellantfiledanappealto

theCICundersection19(3)oftheRTIActon15.1.2014.Inthisappeal,hestated,inter

alia,thathehadfiledhisapplicationunderthelifeorlibertyprovisoofsection7(1)ofthe

RTIAct.HisRTIapplicationwasreceivedintheofficeofthepublicauthorityon1.10.2013.

Nothavingreceivedareply fromtheCPIO,hefiledanappeal to theFirst Appellate

Authorityon13.11.2013.TheFAAdidnotconductanyhearingorpassanyorder.The

CPIOwrote to theAppellanton23.12.2013, replying to threequeriesandstated that

information in response to the remaining queries would be provided shortly. The

Appellantstatedthattheinformationonthreequeries,providedbytheCPIOvidehisletter

dated23.12.2013,was"incompleteandincorrect",becauseHPCLandtheStateBankof

MysorehadhisUIDnumberandhadgotthesameauthenticatedthroughUIDAI,whilethe

CPIOhadstatedinhisreplythathisdatahadnotbeensharedwithanyentityoutsidethe

UIDAI.TheAppellantprayedfordirectiontotheCPIOtoprovidehimcompleteandcorrect

informationfreeofcharge,impositionofpenaltyontheCPIOundersection20(1)ofthe

RTIAct for thedelay inprovisionof information,awarningto theFAAtodisposeof

appealstohimwithinthestipulatedtimelimitsundertheRTIAct,departmentalaction

againsttheCPIOandtheFAAundertherelevantrulesandregulationsandadirectionto

thepublicauthoritytoarrangetrainingonRTImattersforitsconcernedofficials.

2. WeheardthesubmissionsoftheAppellantandtheRespondents.TheCPIOstated

thatinformationontheremainingthreequeriesintheRTIapplicationhadbeenprovided

to the Appellant vide their letter dated 13/16.1.2014. The Appellant's appeal dated

13.11.2013wasalsodisposedofbytheFAAvidehisletterdated7.3.2014.TheAppellant

acknowledgedhavingreceivedtheabovecommunicationsfromtheRespondents.Onthe

issueofprovisionoftherequisiteinformationtotheAppellant,itisseenthatthreeofhis

queries related to the requests received by the Respondents for

authentication/confirmation/matchingofanyofhisdataheldbytheUIDAI,thedetailsof

thepersonsorentitiesaskingforsuchauthenticationetc.andcertifiedcopiesofrequests

forsuchauthenticationandrepliestheretooftheRespondents.TheCPIOhadstatedin

hisreplydated23.12.2013thattheAppellant'sdatahadnotbeensharedwithanyentity

outsidetheUIDAI.TheAppellantsubmittedthatthisinformationwasmisleadingbecause

hehadgivenhisUIDnumbertohisgasagencyandbankinconnectionwithprovisionof

subsidyonsupplyofcookinggascylinders.TheRespondentsstatedthattheuseofthe

UIDnumber,providedbytheAppellanttohisgasagencyandbank,wasforthelimited

purposeofensuringthatthepersonbeingprovidedthegascylindersandsubsidywasthe

same.Itdidnotinvolveauthentication/matchingbythoseagencieswiththedataheldby

theRespondents.TwoofthequeriesrelatedtotheprocedurebywhichaUIDnumber

holdercouldsurrenderhisUIDnumberandcardandgethisdataerasedfromthedata

base of the Respondents. The CPIO informed the Appellant vide his letter dated

13/16.1.2014thatasondate,therewasnosuchprocedureadoptedbytheUIDAItodelete

theUIDnumberfromtheUIDdatabase.TheAppellantsubmittedthatsuchaprocedure

needed to be introduced by the Respondents. The Commission, however, is not

competent to go into this issue. Having received the above information from the

Respondents,theAppellantisatlibertytoraisethismatterinappropriatefora,shouldhe

wishtodoso.ThelastqueryintheRTIapplicationsoughtinformationregardingthenon

UIDAIentities/persons,whohaveaccesstohispersonal/demographic/biometricdataheld

byUIDAIorwithwhomUIDAIhassharedsuchdata.TheCPIOinformedhimvidehis

reply dated13/16.1.2014 that UIDAI wouldshare data only in suchcaseswhere the

resident hasgiventheconsentforsharingthesame.TheCPIOfurtherstatedthatthe

datawouldbesharedonlyonaformalrequestbytheStateconcernedthroughtheNodal

Departments for the delivery of welfare and public services and schemes of the

Government. The Appellant submitted during the hearing that a declaration in the

applicationforUIDnumberobtainstheconsentoftheapplicantforsuchsharingofdata.

TheRespondentsstatedthatsuchconsentisnotmandatory,butoptional.

3. WhilesubmittinghisRTIapplication,theAppellanthadstatedthathewasfilingitin

largerpublicinterestunderlifeorlibertyprovisoofSection7(1)oftheRTIAct,2005and

that,therefore,itshouldberespondedtoin48hoursashispersonallibertyandfreedom

wereaffectedbyUIDproject,whichIhavecometoknowhasbeenoperatingwithoutany

legislativestatutewhatsoever,andmypersonaldata/biometricsweregivento/shared

withprivateplayerswithoverseasaffiliationsaftermyconsentwasdeceitfullyobtained.

Duringthehearing,theAppellantreferredtosomeunspecifiedjudicialpronouncements

which,accordingtohim,havemaintainedthattheRighttoPrivacyiscoveredunderRight

toLiberty.Intheabovecontext,wenotethatthescopeofthetermlifeorlibertyinthe

provisotoSection7(1)oftheRTIAct,hasbeenconsideredbytheCommissioninsome

of itsearlierpronouncements. In itsdecisionNo.CIC/SG/A/2012/000814/18825dated

9.5.2012,theCommissionhadobservedasfollows:

ProvisoofSection7(1)statesthatwheretheinformationsoughtconcernsthelifeorlibertyof aperson,thesameshallbeprovidedwithinfortyeighthoursofthereceiptoftherequest.This provisionhastobeappliedonlyinexceptionalcasesandthenormisthatinformationshould

be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concernsthelifeorlibertyofapersonhastobecarefullyscrutinizedandonlyinaverylimited numberofcasesthisgroundcanbereliedupon.Thegovernmentmachineryisnotdesigned inawaythatresponsestoallRTIApplicationscanbegivenwithinfortyeighthours.Abroadinterpretation of life or liberty would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resourcestowardsreplyingtoRTIApplicationswhichwouldbeunjustified.Parliamenthas madeaveryspecialexceptionforcasesinvolvinglifeorlibertysothatitwouldbeusedonly whenanimminentthreattolifeorlibertyisinvolved.

Thelifeorlibertyprovisioncanbeappliedonlyincaseswherethereisanimminentdangerto thelifeorlibertyofapersonandthenonsupplyoftheinformationmayeitherleadtodeathor grievousinjurytotheconcernedperson.Libertyofapersonisthreatenedifsheorheisgoing tobeincarceratedorhasalreadybeenincarceratedandthedisclosureoftheinformationmay changethatsituation.Ifthedisclosureoftheinformationwouldobviatethedangerthenitmay beconsideredundertheprovisoofSection7(1).Theimminentdangerhastobedemonstrably proven.TheCommissioniswellawareofthefactthatwhenacitizenexerciseshisorher fundamentalrighttoinformation,theinformationdisclosedmayassisthimorhertoleada better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminentdangertolifeorlibertycanbeproven.

GoingbytheaboveinterpretationoftheCommission,thecasebeforeusdoesnotfall

withinthescopeoflifeorlibertyintheprovisotoSection7(1)oftheRTIAct.However,

wetookthisappealupforconsiderationoutofturnastheanswersofthepublicauthority

tothequeriesoftheAppellantintheinstantcasemaybeofinteresttoalargenumberof

UID card holders, who may have similar apprehensions as the Appellant regarding

sharingofthedataprovidedbythemtotheUIDAIforobtainingaUIDcard.

4. WenextcometotheissueofdelayinrespondingtotheRTIapplication. Even

though,asstatedabove,theapplicationdidnotfallwithinthescopeofthelifeorliberty

proviso,theCPIOwasrequiredtorespondtoitwithinthirtydaysofitsreceipt,under

Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. However, it is clear that the RTI application wasnot

respondedtowithinthistimeframe. Apartoftheapplicationdated27.9.2013which,

accordingtotheinformationprovidedbytheAppellant,wasreceivedintheofficeofthe

publicauthorityon1.10.2013,wasrespondedtobytheCPIOonlyon23.12.2013. The

remaining information was provided by the CPIO vide his letter dated 13/16.1.2014.

Further,theFirstAppellateAuthorityneithergaveapersonalhearingtotheAppellant,as

requestedinhisappealdated13.11.2013totheFAA;nordidtheFAApassanyorderon

theabovementionedappealtill7.3.2014,i.e.wellbeyondthetimelimitlaiddowninthe

RTIAct. Moreover,bythistime,ShriShrishKumar,ADG,whowasCPIOatthetime,

whentheRTIapplicationwasfiledandwhenitwaspartiallyrespondedtoon23.12.2013,

had been appointed the First Appellate Authority and the order dated 7.3.2014 was

passedbyhim. ShriShrishKumar,therefore,satinjudgment,inhiscapacityasFAA,

overtheearlierhandlingofthematterbyhiminhiscapacityastheCPIO.Thiswasnot

appropriatebecauseaperson,performingquasijudicialfunctions,cannotandshouldnot

sitinjudgmentoverhisownearlieractionsinadifferentcapacity.

5. AsfarasthedelayinrespondingtotheRTIapplicationonthepartoftheCPIOis

concerned, Shri Shrish Kumar has shown us papers regarding action on the RTI

applicationwithinthepublicauthority. Itisclearthathehadtoseekinformationonthe

queriesintheRTIapplicationfromdifferentauthoritieswithintheUIDAI,whichtooksome

time.However,equallycleararethetimegapsinactiononthisapplication,whichcould

havebeenavoided,hadtheCPIOgivenaregularfollowuptotheapplication,toensure

timelyactiononit.Inthiscontext,theCPIOhasinformedusthatuntil18.11.2013,when

anorder waspassedby the pubic authority to appoint thirteenCPIOs, dealing with

differentsubjects,aswellasdifferentFAAstodealwithapplicationsindifferentfields,he

(Shri ShrishKumar)was thesole CPIOat theUIDAIHeadquarters. Hehas further

submittedthattherehadbeenasurgeintheRTIapplicationstotheUIDAIthroughthe

onlineRTIportalsinceAugustSeptember2013,andasmanyas480applicationswere

receivedbetweenAugust&November2013.Therefore,itwashumanlynotpossiblefor

himtogiveregularfollowuptoeachandeveryapplication.Wearesurprisedthatapublic

authoritysuchastheUIDAI,withwidespreadpublicdealings,shouldhavethoughtitfitto

haveonlyoneCPIOuntilrecently. WeagreewiththesubmissionofShriShrishKumar

thatinthefaceofsuchasituation,itwashumanlynotpossibleforhimtogivearegular

followuptoRTIapplications. Inviewof theforegoing, thiscasedoesnotmeet the

requirementofSection20(1)oftheRTIActregardingnonfurnishingofinformationbya

CPIOwithin the time specified under Section 7 (1) without any reasonable cause.

Accordingly,wedonotregard it asafit casefor impositionofpenaltyontheCPIO.

Amongsthisprayersinthesecondappeal,theAppellanthasalsoaskedfordepartmental

actionagainsttheCPIOandtheFAAundertherelevantrulesandregulations. Inthis

context,whiletakingaseriousviewofnondisposaloftheappealdated13.11.2013bythe

FAAwithinthestipulatedtimeframe,wenotethatthereisnoprovisionintheRTIActfor

departmental actionagainst FAA in suchcases. Disciplinaryactionagainst CPIO is

providedforinSection20(2)oftheRTIAct. However,wenotethatthiscasedoesnot

meettherequirement,stipulatedinSection20(2),ofnonfurnishingofinformationwithin

thetimespecifiedunderSection7(1)oftheRTIActwithoutanyreasonablecauseand

persistently.Atthesametime,thehandlingoftheRTIapplicationmakesitclearthatthe

dealingofficerswerenotfullyconversantwiththerequirementsoftheRTIAct.Thiscalls

forafamiliarisation/trainingprogrammeforalltheconcernedofficersofUIDAI,dealing

withRTImatters.

6. Havingcarefullyconsideredtherecordsandsubmissionsbeforeus,thisappealis

disposedofbygivingthefollowingdirectionstoUIDAIbyvirtueofthepowersvestedinus

underSection19(8)oftheRTIAct,2005:

(a) ThepublicauthoritymustatalltimesmaintainanadequatenumberofCPIOs

andFAAstoensurethatallapplicationsandappealsfiledundertheRTIAct

aredisposedofstrictlywithinthetimelimitslaiddowninthesaidAct.

(b) SinceShriShrishKumar,theformerCPIOhasnowbeenappointedtheFirst

AppellateAuthority,anotherFAAmaybedesignatedtodisposeofappeals,if

any,againstresponsestoRTIapplicationsgivenearlierbyShriShrishKumarin

hiscapacityasCPIO.

(c) ThepublicauthorityshouldorganiseatrainingprogrammeonRTImatters,for

allitsconcernedofficials,atanearlydate.

7. Copiesofthisorderbegivenfreeofcosttotheparties.Asidefromsendingcopies

ofthisordertotheusualrecipients,theRegistryisdirectedtosendacopybynametothe

functionaryheadingtheUIDAI.

Sd/(SharatSabharwal)

InformationCommissioner

Copyto:ShriVijayS.MadanDirectorGeneral,Tower2,3rdFloor,JeevanBharatiBuilding,ConnaughtCircus,NewDelhi

Authenticatedtruecopy.AdditionalcopiesofordersshallbesuppliedagainstapplicationandpaymentofthechargesprescribedundertheActtotheCPIOofthisCommission.

(VijayBhalla)DeputyRegistrar

Name of the Appellant