This article covers Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order on Zach Mathew’s two appeals against the replies of Secretariat, AV Foundation to his two applications filed in 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 and non-reply respectively to their applications, 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 filed in 2022 and those in 2023 for which CIC orders were issued on appeal will appear subsequently.
Zach Mathew's first RTI application on 5th August 2022 requested minutes of discussions of the Working Committee (WC), where it was decided that the WC should use a parallel email address of aurovilleworkingcommittee @gmail.com (the gmail.com email). His application may be summarised in the form of the following questions (see attached document for the actual text): Were transparency of decision-making and the ability of internal and external authorities to audit non-auroville.org.in emails covered in the discussions? Which WC members voted in favour of using private email addresses for the Committee work? Which email addresses were used by individual WC members to conduct businesses related to their duties in the WC? Why the WC thought it is not appropriate to conduct all its businesses in the official email address? What is the extent of the Secretary’s approval of the utilization of the gmail.com email address for the WC?
The CPIO’s replied more than a year later and did not give the information sought. The applicant Zach Mathew appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who is the Secretary, Auroville Foundation. The FAA’s reply dated 5th October 2023 also did not provide the information and said, “The official communications and other internal matters cannot be disclosed”. Aggrieved, the applicant next appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Zach Mathew’s second RTI application on the same date requested information on the Grievance Cell as informed by a mass bulletin from the “Governing Board approved Working Committee” on the 16th of June 2022. The bulletin said as the reason for the move, “Several unofficial complaints from the silent majority of Auroville residents indicate that they are unable to speak up in favour of the current movement to build the city as per the Master Plan”.
The applicant wanted to know the number of “unofficial complaints” received along with an outline of their contents. His application may be summarised in the form of the following questions (see attached document for the actual text): To whom were the complaints addressed and when? What is the method of investigation and power of enforcement of the Grievance Cell? What are the details of the appointments and the appointing authority? Why there was no standing or official order or “approval of the competent authority” for the validity of the Grievance Cell?
The CPIO replied on 13th September 2023 but did not provide the requested information stating “the internal document cannot be shared with the third party”. The applicant appealed to the FAA (the Secretary, Auroville Foundation) who replied on 5th October 2023 but again did not provide the information sought. She stated further that “the internal document cannot be shared with the third party.” Aggrieved, the applicant then appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Hon’ble Commissioner Smt. Anandi Ramalingam of the CIC, clubbing together the above two RTIs of Zach Mathew, heard the representatives of the applicant and CPIO on 12th February 2024 and issued the following order (excerpt) the next day the 13th of February 2024:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that replies 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 section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit the RTI applications and provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant in both cases. If the information cannot be given, the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable should be specified and reply given, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The full CIC Order on Zach Mathew’s two RTI Appeals is available at the following links:
Previous articles related to the subject:
