Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2318
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Heeralal Samariya, CJ
Shri Neeraj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/MHOME/C/2021/606547
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Amrita Johri
For the Respondents: Shi P Venukuttan, Shri K R Murmu, Ms. Manisha Agarwal
The Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, as it is not owned, controlled, or financed by the government.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Definition of Public Authority - The complaint regarding the status of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust as a public authority was examined. The Commission found the PIO's response inadequate as it did not cite provisions for denial of information. The Trust, established under Supreme Court directions, was deemed independent and not a public authority under the Act. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 30, 31)
(B) Compliance with RTI - The Commission directed the PIO to provide a revised response to the RTI application, emphasizing compliance with the RTI Act. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Willful Concealment of Information - The Commission concluded that there was no willful concealment of information by the PIO, as the information provided was in accordance with the RTI Act. (Paras 28, 29)
Information sought and background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
2.1 “Please provide the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" created by notification CG-DL-E-05022020-215935 dated 5 February 2020. According to RTI section 5 of RTI act CPIO & FAA should be appointed within 100 days.”
The CPIO & Director (NI), Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 28.01.2021 replied as under:-
2. “This is to inform you that undersigned is Central Public Information Officer in respect of Ayodhya Section of JKL Division of Ministry of Home Affairs. This is further to mention here that Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has been constituted by the Government of India as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in its judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010 vide notification dated 05.02.2020. The said Trust is an autonomous organisation/body.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint contending that since the Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has come into being by virtue of notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, hence it falls within the definition of Section 2(h), viz. the definition of “public authority” as laid down under the RTI Act.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 30.06.2022 has been received from the CPIO/DS(Arms & NI/Ayodhya) reiterating aforementioned PIO’s reply. The Complainant had filed an online First Appeal dated 24.02.2021 which had also been decided by FAA’s order dated 08.03.2021 upholding the PIO’s reply and stating that: CPIO is bound to provide only that information which is available with him. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and in held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public information officer in not supposed to create information or to do research on behalf of any citizen.
Records of the case reveal that the instant case with three other connected cases had been heard by the Bench of the erstwhile Chief Information Commission on
04.07.2022, and decided as under:
“ Upon perusal of the facts of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act has been cited for the tacit denial. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law.
Under the circumstances, the Commission directs Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, M/o Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Applicant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard alongwith necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly.”
In compliance of the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the PIO, JKL Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA sent a communication dated 28.07.2022 to the Complainant stating as under:
(1) The information sought by you is not held in this office.
(2) Further, section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 defines "Public Authority" as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any -
(1) body o
