CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.414, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka New Delhi-110067 CIC/PMOIN/A/2016/305426/NHRCM Date of Hearing : 03.01.2018 Date of Decision : 03.01.2018 Appellant/Complainant : Durlabh Agrawal Respondent : PIO, NHRC Through:

Shri Khaleel Ahmad, Dy. Registrar, NHRC Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 18.04.2016 23.05.2016 PIO replied on : 29.04.2016 17.06.2016 First Appeal filed on : 23.05.2016 11.07.2016 First Appellate Order on : 20.06.2016 12.08.2016

2^nd Appeal/complaint received on : 16.09.2016 Since the captioned appeals involve same parties, they are taken up together for hearing as well as adjudication to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

CIC/NHRCM/A/2017/133186 Information sought and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 23.05.2016, the appellant states that he has been implicated in a false criminal case by police, charged with non-bailable offences and sent to jail. The appellant questioned the authority of Human Rights Commission under 5 points. Deputy Registrar (Law) & PIO vide letter dated 17.06.2016 while sending a copy of PHR Act, clarified the appellant that Human Rights has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the PHR Act, 1993. It was also conveyed to the appellant that application filed under RTI Act, are exclusively meant for seeking information held by public authority. No other request/prayer/clarification/opinion/guidance/question answer in affirmative or otherwise made in RTI application is entertainable or comes under the purview of RTI/PIO. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal. The FAA vide order dated 12.08.2016 upheld the decision of PIO.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

Information sought and background of the case:

Vide RTI application dated 18.04.2016, the appellant sought information on 05 points relating to functioning/ procedure of the Commission. The PIO furnished the information against each query vide letter dated 13.05.2016. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal.

FAA vide letter dated 24.06.2016 as under:-

“……………..Apparently, the grievance of the appellant is that the reminders issued and summons issued in his case, were not provided w.r.t. his previous letters and RTI application. It is clarified that information furnished to the RTI applicant was in the context of action taken by the Commission on non-receipt of reports from the concerned authority, in a given case.

In the case of RTI applicant/appellant, since the comments and the reports have been received in time, there was no occasion for issue of reminders/summons.”

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant is aggrieved due to alleged inaction of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in processing his case and the decision to close the same. It is asserted by the appellant that his son was implicated in false case and had to undergo incarceration being under trial. In this factual backdrop, the appellant states to have lodged a complaint with NHRC alleging violation of his human rights. The NHRC after having examined the same found it to be beyond its purview of jurisdiction as the case was pending in a court of law. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of NHRC, the appellant filed the present RTI applications seeking information regarding the processing of complaints received by NHRC. The second RTI addressed to NHRC espouses the larger cause of filing of all judicial vacancies in court so law and steps taken by NHRC to fulfil the same.

The appellant made passionate submissions at length regarding his expectations from NHRC besides levelling allegations against the present Commission.

On the other hand, the PIO states that both the RTI applications filed by appellant were replied to adequately. He states that the order of rejection passed by th