Under RTI Act Section 18, Commission cannot direct information disclosure in complaints; jurisdiction limited to penalizing mala fide denial, not substituting appeal remedies. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18 and 20 - Jurisdiction under Section 18 - Commission cannot direct disclosure of information in complaints under Section 18; limited to examining deliberate denial - No power to order access to denied information, only penalty if mala fide conduct proven - Repeated complaints without hearing attendance amounts to abuse of process. (Paras 17, 19)

(B) RTI Act, 2005 - Bona fide exercise - Right to information must be exercised in good faith; non-appearance despite notices shows lack of diligence, consuming public resources unnecessarily. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
Multiple clubbed complaints against public authority concerning animal welfare, captivity status, transportation protocols, recognitions, and related records under wildlife and cruelty prevention laws - CPIO denied information as not available, vague, or outside mandate, directing to websites - FAA upheld responses - Complainant absent at hearing despite notices.

Findings of Court:
No infirmity in CPIO responses; information provided as available per RTI provisions - No mala fide denial warranting penalty.

Issues: Whether CPIO deliberately denied information under Section 18; validity of responses citing non-availability and jurisdictional limits.

Ratio Decidendi: Commission under Section 18 lacks jurisdiction to direct information disclosure, only to check for intentional denial - Relying on Supreme Court ruling, Sections 18 and 19 provide distinct remedies; absence and records show appropriate replies, dismissing complaints.

Result: All complaints dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rti on zoo animals and cpio denial (Para 1)
2. rti on circus elephants status (Para 2)
3. rti on animal transport protocols (Para 3)
4. rti on elephant permissions and relaxations (Para 4)
5. rti on temple trust animal status (Para 5)
6. rti on rescue centre animal transfers (Para 6)
7. rti on zoo acquisition permissions (Para 7)
8. rti on animal adoption schemes (Para 8)
9. rti on zoo recognition compliance (Para 9)
10. rti on ownership certificates (Para 10)
11. hearing attendance facts (Para 11)
12. no rti violation by cpio (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
13. section 18 limits; complaints dismissed (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

ORDER

Complaint No. CIC/CZAUR/C/2024/613008

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Supply complete list with present status, species-gender-age wise, copies of all recognised establishments with the CZA, are removed meat animals - performing animals from the display of public view, entering with ticket, and rest animals in captivity, registered with AWBI, as they are not exempted, restoring their five freedoms, along with adopted animals.

2. Status reports of all complaints lodged with action taken, copies needed to follow up.

3. Coordination between CZA, AWBI, NTCA, NBA with WCCB, supply copies.

4. Complete list and copies of exemption under section 22 of PCA Act, 1960, related to display as performing animals in Zoo.

- Naresh Kadyan, Master Trainer in Animal Welfare to Govt. of India

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. “..Information desired by the applicant is not available with this public authority.

The question of housing and display of performing animals in a zoo arises only in case of Circus by virtue of its inclusion in the definition of 'zoo' under section 2(39) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, with effect from April 1, 2003.

Para 11(2) of the Schedule in Rule 10 under the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, notified by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under clause (f) and (g) sub-section (1) of section 63 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 vide G.S.R.807(E) dated November 10, 2009, does not permit any physical handling or performances by animals as part of educational activity in a ZOO.

2. The applicant may please specify the information required as the text of the existing request for information is extremely vague in nature.

3. The applicant may please specify the information required as the text of the existing request for information is extremely vague in nature.

4. As per provisions of section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, nothing contained in the Chapter V of the Act shall apply to any animals kept in any zoological garden or by any society or association which has for its principal object the exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes. Hence, the question of providing information desired by the applicant does not arise…”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2024 observed as under:-

5. Now, therefore, it is observed that the information as available with this public authority was provided to the applicant within the prescribed time limit and did not see merit in the appeal and the appeal bearing Registration Number CZAUT/A/E/24/00004 is disposed of. In case the appellant is not satisfied with the decision, the second appeal lies with the Central Information Commission.

1.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.

Complaint No. CIC/CZAUR/C/2024/613309

2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

All male and female Elephants, and other performing animals, owned by Circuses, Bonafide zoo, as per recognized list of AWB

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1520

Under RTI Act Section 18, Commission cannot direct information disclosure in complaints; jurisdiction limited to penalizing mala fide denial, not substituting appeal remedies. (28 words)

Login now and unlock premium legal research