Moneylife: Pune: Saturday, 30 September 2023.
Until recently, the trend of information commissioners to protect public information officers (PIOs) sympathising their workload on right to information (RTI) replies, has been largely replaced by directing them to abide by proactive disclosures under section 4 of the RTI Act and also urging them to provide such info in the FAQ format on their respective public authority’s website.
In a recent order on 25th September, CIC Saroj Punhani, while reprimanding the RTI application for seeking clarification and not information in his RTI application, she has directed the central public information officer (CPIO) of the chief income tax commissioner’s office of Delhi to introduce/ update information on the website in order for citizens to get it at the click of the mouse.
Ms Punhani in her order directed to the CPIO, that, “…it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of introducing/updating a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought issues/clarifications and/or respective orders/circulars pertaining to the subject matter issues can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.”
She further stated that many RTI applications would not be invoked under section 6 of the RTI Act if such transparency is maintained and updated from time to time. Besides it would save precious man-hours of the CPIOs. She observed that “This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.”
RTI applicant Jisha Raj sought information from Delhi’s chief income tax commission’s office, about whether the CPIO can share information on the current criteria for getting a tax exemption on home loan interest under Section 24; whether there are extra conditions for tax exemption if a residential property is jointly owned and; if a person and their spouse jointly own a house, can the taxpayer claim a maximum exemption of Rs2 lakh under section 24(b), even if the spouse isn't in the taxable slab or not claiming the exemption separately in the income tax return.
The following were the exact wordings of the RTI application dated 23 February 2023:
(a) Requests, kindly provide me the copy of detailed and latest criteria to avail income tax exemption under Section 24 for interest on Borrowed Capital for Construction of Residential Purpose Building.
(b) Is there any additional criterial in the case of Joint Ownership of Property in which the residential building is built for availing tax exemption?
(c) Can a taxpayer apply for exemption under section 24(b) for the maximum of Rs.2 lakh even if the residential building is in a joint ownership with his/her spouse and spouse is not in the taxable slab/not separately claiming said exemption in ITR?”
The CPIO replied to him stating that his information which comes under section 22-27, section 80EE and 80EEA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “is readily available in the public domain. You may also see the details of the relevant section on the departmental website www.incometaxindia.gov.in.”
Dissatisfied with the reply, he filed a first appeal on 13 March 2023 but the latter upheld the CPIO’s reply. Hence, he filed a second appeal which came up for hearing last week.
Reprimanding the RTI applicant for seeking clarifications instead of information:
CIC Punhani agreed with the CPIO’s reply and stated that “the Commission does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO’s provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.”
Ms Punhani stated that seeking clarification in an RTI application is unwarranted. It implies “outstretching the interpretation of section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/ inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.”
Ms Punhani brought to the notice of the SC judgment CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and others that: “A public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide ‘advice' or ‘opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion' or ‘advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or ‘advice' in the definition of ‘information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied).”
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Supreme Court held as under:
Pointing to the section 6 of the RTI Act, Ms Punhani observed that “Under section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him….” (Emphasis Supplied)
CIC Punhani further reiterated, picking up the Bombay High Court order of Dr Celsa Pinto, ex-officio joint secretary (school education) vs the Goa State information commission where the court observed that “[2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
“The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” (Emphasis Supplied)
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
Until recently, the trend of information commissioners to protect public information officers (PIOs) sympathising their workload on right to information (RTI) replies, has been largely replaced by directing them to abide by proactive disclosures under section 4 of the RTI Act and also urging them to provide such info in the FAQ format on their respective public authority’s website.
In a recent order on 25th September, CIC Saroj Punhani, while reprimanding the RTI application for seeking clarification and not information in his RTI application, she has directed the central public information officer (CPIO) of the chief income tax commissioner’s office of Delhi to introduce/ update information on the website in order for citizens to get it at the click of the mouse.
Ms Punhani in her order directed to the CPIO, that, “…it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of introducing/updating a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought issues/clarifications and/or respective orders/circulars pertaining to the subject matter issues can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.”
She further stated that many RTI applications would not be invoked under section 6 of the RTI Act if such transparency is maintained and updated from time to time. Besides it would save precious man-hours of the CPIOs. She observed that “This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.”
RTI applicant Jisha Raj sought information from Delhi’s chief income tax commission’s office, about whether the CPIO can share information on the current criteria for getting a tax exemption on home loan interest under Section 24; whether there are extra conditions for tax exemption if a residential property is jointly owned and; if a person and their spouse jointly own a house, can the taxpayer claim a maximum exemption of Rs2 lakh under section 24(b), even if the spouse isn't in the taxable slab or not claiming the exemption separately in the income tax return.
The following were the exact wordings of the RTI application dated 23 February 2023:
(a) Requests, kindly provide me the copy of detailed and latest criteria to avail income tax exemption under Section 24 for interest on Borrowed Capital for Construction of Residential Purpose Building.
(b) Is there any additional criterial in the case of Joint Ownership of Property in which the residential building is built for availing tax exemption?
(c) Can a taxpayer apply for exemption under section 24(b) for the maximum of Rs.2 lakh even if the residential building is in a joint ownership with his/her spouse and spouse is not in the taxable slab/not separately claiming said exemption in ITR?”
The CPIO replied to him stating that his information which comes under section 22-27, section 80EE and 80EEA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “is readily available in the public domain. You may also see the details of the relevant section on the departmental website www.incometaxindia.gov.in.”
Dissatisfied with the reply, he filed a first appeal on 13 March 2023 but the latter upheld the CPIO’s reply. Hence, he filed a second appeal which came up for hearing last week.
Reprimanding the RTI applicant for seeking clarifications instead of information:
CIC Punhani agreed with the CPIO’s reply and stated that “the Commission does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO’s provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.”
Ms Punhani stated that seeking clarification in an RTI application is unwarranted. It implies “outstretching the interpretation of section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/ inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.”
Ms Punhani brought to the notice of the SC judgment CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and others that: “A public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide ‘advice' or ‘opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion' or ‘advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or ‘advice' in the definition of ‘information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied).”
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Supreme Court held as under:
Pointing to the section 6 of the RTI Act, Ms Punhani observed that “Under section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him….” (Emphasis Supplied)
CIC Punhani further reiterated, picking up the Bombay High Court order of Dr Celsa Pinto, ex-officio joint secretary (school education) vs the Goa State information commission where the court observed that “[2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
“The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” (Emphasis Supplied)
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
.JPG)
.JPG)
