This article covers the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order on Yash Marwah’s three appeals against the replies of Secretariat, AV Foundation to his three applications filed in June 2022 for information under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
Links to the previous articles covering Parvesh Debuka and Nityanand Jayaraman's appeals against the Secretariat, Auroville Foundation’s replies/non-reply and the CIC’s Orders thereon are given at the end. The purpose and powers of the RTI Act are given in the first article (Parvesh Debuka).
Articles covering the remaining RTIs (RTI Applications) filed in 2022 and those in 2023 for which CIC orders were issued on appeal will appear subsequently.
Yash Marwah’s first RTI application dated 16th June 2022 wanted to know if there was an agreement/contract/MoU between Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and Auroville Foundation. If so, he requested a copy of the same and further wanted to know
1. if “Auroville TV Channel” referenced in the “News and Notes 11th June” would be hosted on Jio Mobile app.
2. name of the unit / activity of the Auroville Foundation associated with the email address mediainterface-avf @auroville.org.in and and the office order establishing it.
The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer, AVF) replied 15 months later on 13th September 2023: “ “The confidential documents such as orders cannot be shared with the third party”. Yash Marwah appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who is the Secretary, Auroville Foundation. The FAA upheld the CPIO’s order and aggrieved, the applicant next appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Hon’ble Commissioner Smt. Anandi Ramalingam of the CIC, heard the representatives of the applicant and CPIO on 12th February 2044 and the next day 13th February 2024 issued the following order (excerpt) :
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. The respondent, without applying his mind, had simply denied the information and most importantly they had not specified any of the exemption clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Yash Marwah’s second and third RTI applications also dated 16th June 2022 received identical orders from the Central Information Commission.
His second RTI application requested
1. “the appointment order naming the members of the Finance Committee of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation as of the year 2022” and the official minutes of the meetings of the Committee from Jan 2021 - June 2022.
2. “the official minutes of the meetings of the Organization and Governance Committee [OGC] of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation” for the same period.
3. a copy of the office order constituting Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC) in 2022.
4. a copy of the proposal submitted to the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation by the Organization and Governance Committee of the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation to “review and revise certain Standing Orders” as cited in 59.05 of the minutes of the 59th meeting of the Governing Board.
5. “a copy of the comments of the Ministry of Education and the Integrated Finance Division received before commencement of the 59th meeting of the Governing Board”.
The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer, AVF) replied 15 months later on 8th September 2023: “The other committees have recommended the agenda points. All the agenda points are discussed in the governing board meeting for approval. Check the website for the MoM”.
“Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2022. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.” Aggrieved, the applicant next appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Yash Marwah’s third RTI application filed on the same day as the first one repeated his request made in the second application for a copy of the standing order constituting ATDC in 2022 besides a copy of the office order appointing the FAMC in 2022. He also asked Dr Jayanti Ravi, as Secretary of AVF and Convenor of FAMC, to confirm:
(a) The selection criteria adopted for the selection of the new FAMC
(b) The selection panel for the new FAMC
(c) Confirmation of the extent to which the Governing Board and herself were involved in selecting the new FAMC.
(d) The extent to which conflicts of interest were considered in the appointment of the new FAMC and the extent to which it will be considered for all decisions they make hereafter.
(e) The reason for withholding the Office Order from the Residents ‘Assembly when announcing the existence of the new FAMC and its composition.
He further asked
1. “whether it was the advice of the OGC that it would be appropriate to reconstitute the FAMC by means of Office Order. If it was not their explicit advice who took the decision to draft and implement an Office Order regardless?”
2. If such legal advice was taken, when and with whom?
The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer, AVF) replied 15 months later on 13th September 2023: “Auroville Foundation appointed the members in the various committees as per the approval of the authorities and follows the Auroville Foundation Act and Rules. The confidential documents such as orders cannot be shared with the third party.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and, aggrieved, the applicant next appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Hon’ble Commissioner Smt. Anandi Ramalingam of the CIC, heard the representatives of the applicant and the CPIO on the 2nd and 3rd RTI applications of Yash Marwah and on 12th February 2044 and issued the next day 13th February 2024 the following identical order for both (excerpt):
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. The respondent, without applying his mind, had simply denied the information and most importantly they had not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Besides, there was considerable delay in disposing the RTI application and the first appeal and the respondent failed to explain the cogent reasons for such inordinate delay. Further, the Commission expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO for not responding to the above-mentioned RTI application within the stipulated time frame. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his above-said conduct, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 22.03.2024, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
The full CIC Orders on Yash Marwah’s three RTI Appeals are available at the following links:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L2hwcf6ScKzGA7tUBfE1if8DmZWYPQ4I/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fhn2LBACrrHg70yn9X1BTKCNerP0SeSU/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uymm712Cotx14Bvwk9Dam4tn1qdByjqz/view?usp=drive_link
Previous articles related to the subject:
CIC show cause notice to AVF for “evasive and misleading” replies to RTI applicant
CIC's 2nd show cause notice to Secretariat, Auroville Foundation
CIC: Revisit & reply point-wise to RTI applications on WC’s “parallel address” & the Grievance Cell