The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, July 31, 2018.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) has recently pulled up the Paralympic Committee of
India (PCI) for not responding to queries under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act under its present chairman and has directed it to reply to all RTI appeals
including the one filed by its former president. In a significant order on an
appeal filed by former president of the PCI Rajesh Tomar, central information
commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu held that according to the “rules,
regulations and conduct” of acquiescence of the PCI and by “virtue” of its
selecting the Indian teams and receiving grants, it is a “public authority
under the RTI Act”. The PCI selects Indian teams for regional, national and
international competitions and also receives central grants worth crores of
rupees.
“The PCI has
to be accountable and answerable as public authority under the RTI Act, and it
cannot deny the right to information of any citizen, including that of the
present appellant who is a former president of PCI,” the Commission held,
adding that the PCI also “undoubtedly” qualified as a public authority under
Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
During the
hearing before the CIC, advocate B.K. Goel had, appearing on behalf of the PCI,
submitted that in response to Tomar’s appeal filed on February 8 this year in
which he had sought the details of expenditure under five different heads
incurred by the PCI, including the total amount paid up to January 31, 2018 to
Justice (Retd.) Kailash Gambhir, who had been appointed Chairman by the Delhi
High Court – the Committee had furnished a reply on April 16 wherein it had
“denied the information under commercial confidence clause of Section 8 (1)(d)
of the RTI Act.” Goel had also submitted a copy of the response.
“PCI sent
blank paper in its response to RTI query”
For his part,
Tomar had alleged that the PCI had sent him blank papers and not the one Goel
submitted to the CIC in response to his query. On this, the CIC held that “this
allegation of mischief of sending white papers instead of reply cannot be left
without enquiry.” In his order, Acharyulu also directed the Chairman of the PCI
to inquire into the allegation that the RTI wing of the PCI had deliberately
given blank papers in an envelop instead of answer sheets. Acharyulu noted that
this amounted to “suppressing the replies” and that the PCI was duty-bound to
find out the officer or employee responsible for the said mischief and take
appropriate action within a month.
Payment to
lawyers cannot be “confidential information”
In his
appeal, Tomar had also sought the details of fees paid by the PCI to the
lawyers appointed to argue the cases against him. In his order, Acharyulu
observed that the Committee and its lawyer, while quoting Section 8 (1)(d) of
the RTI Act for not submitting a reply, could not justify the denial of
information or explain how revealing the details of lawyers’ fees could affect
their business or commerce.
“The PCI
being a public authority as recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports, performing the public function of selecting teams for state, regional,
national and international teams on behalf of India, respective states and regions,
cannot deny such information,” Acharyulu said in his order. He further stated
that there was “no commerce or confidentiality involved in the payment of fee
to advocates” and any such payment cannot be termed “confidential information.”
“It is the
duty of the CPIO or public authority to discharge the onus of justifying the
denial under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act,” he added.
Law
Commission’s recommendation on BCCI brought up during the hearing
The PCI
representative had, while contending that the Committee was not a public
authority, also quoted the April 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court in the BCCI
case asking the Law Commission to consider whether the cricket body was a
public authority under the RTI Act. In response, the Law Commission had in April
this year strongly recommended making BCCI a public authority.
Acharyulu
noted that advocate Goel had admitted that the PCI was a national sports
federation for paralympic sports for India and that, according to MoYAS
guidelines and policies, every national sports federation had to be responsive
under the RTI Act as a public authority. “He also agreed that MoYAS was
granting funds for paralympic sports and that the PCI was selecting team
members to represent India in international competitions called Paralympics and
also selecting teams for states and regions for state, regional and national
teams,” Arharyalu further noted.
PCI
receives Rs 3-5 crore annual grant
The CIC also
noted that the central public information officer of MoYAS Arun Kumar Singh had
stated that the ministry had written to the PCI that it “has a duty to provide
information in response to RTI requests, because the PCI, being a national
sports federation, is a public authority.” Singh had also submitted that “as
per the National Sports Development Council, every national sports federation
will be a public authority if they receive grants of Rs 10 lakhs or more per
year.” In the case of the PCI, he had stated that it was “receiving three to
five crore rupees every year” and was thus undoubtedly a public authority as
per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
Commissioner
Acharyulu also recorded Tomar’s submission that when he was president of the
PCI, the Committee had acted as a public authority under the RTI Act and had
provided information in response to RTI applications. In light of all these
facts, the Acharyulu, “The contention of the representative of respondent
authority that the PCI is not a public authority is illegal, contradictory and
unwarranted, hence rejected.”
Tomar was
sacked from post in April 2015
Incidentally,
Tomar had been sacked from the post of president of the PCI in April 2015 over
lack of proper facilities at the 15th National Paralympic Meet held in
Ghaziabad. He had, however, blamed the government for not providing a proper
venue to host the event.
.JPG)
.JPG)
