Central Information Commission
Block-IV, 5th Floor,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Website: http://www.cic.gov.in/
(Adjunct to Decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated, 14th May, 2007)
Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00104
Dated, the 12th September, 2007
Name of the Appellant: Shri D.K. Chopra.
Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi
Facts: 1. The appellant had asked for certain information, which were furnished, except the minutes of the Managing Committee (MC) of Purna Prajna Public School, Vasant Kumj, New Delhi. The Commission examined the appeal and made the following observations in it’s decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated 18th May, 2007:-
• The PIO is directed to obtain, u/s 2(f) of the Act, the minutes of the Managing
Committee meetings from March 2002 to March 2007 from the school and provide a
copy to the appellant.
• The information sought as above should be furnished within 15 working days from the
date of issue of this decision.
2. Subsequently, the appellant informed the Commission that the PIO has not complied with the above decision. The PIO, in turn, stated that he had no legal authority to obtain the information from the school.
3. Both the parties were therefore issued notices for a hearing again in the matter of non-compliance of above decision. The parties were heard on 20th August , 2007 and 12th September, 2007. A representative of the PIO reiterated that under Delhi Education Act, the documents which could be obtained, are specified under Annexure-II in which the document, namely minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of schools is not included. The Department of Education was therefore unable to acquire the minutes of the Managing Committee from the concerned school as directed by the Commission. Though an official of the respondent is a member of the MC, the PIO has however no access to the minutes of MC, it was contended.
Decision:
4. The main issue that emanate from the foregoing is that the Government of Delhi has no control on the functioning of un-aided schools and that it cannot access the minutes of MCs under any law, which is un-acceptable to the Commission.
5. A major objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in functioning of the institutions, particularly the service providers that have considerable interface with a larger section of people. The documents, in question, contain such information that foretell about the health and vitality of the schools, which are responsible for preparing our children to lead the nation. Moreover, the information asked for is an outcome of deliberations of the major stakeholders – school authorities, teachers, representatives of PTA and the Government of Delhi. The minutes of MCs are thus already in public domain, as these are circulated among the members. How can it be treated as confidential or secret? Unfortunately, the Principal of the school and the PIO have connived to withhold the minutes of the MCs for reasons that contravene with the larger purpose of creating an information regime for good governance.
6. As the activities of the functionaries of the education sector have intense and pervasive influence on every human activity, the decisions taken by the Managing Committees have considerable implications for promoting quality education and the well-being of the entire society. Such documents, therefore, cannot be claimed as secret information by any school which performs a governmental function. The Principal of the school and the PIO have thus failed to appreciate the intent and purpose of the Act which seeks to promote people’s involvement in decision making processes and implementation of programs.
7. All the aided or unaided schools are performing governmental functions to promote high quality of relevant education. An official of the GNCT of Delhi is nominated by the Directorate of Education as a member of the Management Committee of all the schools. The nominated member of the Directorate of Education is therefore the custodian of the minutes of the MCs under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. And, there is no reason why such minutes, reflecting the aspects of governance of the school, should not be put in public domain. The Government has the control on the functioning of the schools and, therefore, it has access to the information asked for. And, so has a citizen.
8. Not only the land allotted to private educational institutes are provided at subsidized rates, but also the fees paid by the students/parents enjoy income-tax concession. There is thus some element of indirect Government funding in the activities of even private and un-aided schools. In view of this, the respondent, which is represented through its officials on the Managing Committee, is surely the custodian of the information asked for by the appellant. The decisions of the MCs have significant bearing on the life and career of the students as well as their parents / guardians and, therefore, there is no reason why the minutes of the Managing Committee should not be disclosed to the affected persons i.e. the citizens.
9. The PIO’s contention that the minutes of the MCs are not included in Annexure-II of Delhi Education Act and, therefore, he cannot acquire them is not acceptable, as Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 has an overriding effect on all such provisions that come in the way of promotion of transparency in functioning of the schools, the activities of which are governmental in nature. The PIO is directed again to furnish the information at the earliest under intimation to the Commission.
10. The then PIO Dr. R. A. Yadav and the present PIO Mrs. S. Kaur, DDE are also held in violation of section 7(1) of the Act. They are therefore directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on them us 20(1) of the Act, for their deliberate attempt to deny the information asked for by the appellant. Inspite the direction given by the Commission, they have made no worthwhile effort to acquire the document from the school or the nominated member of the respondent. They should submit their written submission and also appear for a personal hearing before the Commission on 12th October, 2007 at 2.00 p.m. (at 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place).
11. In view of lackadaisical attitude of the concerned PIO and the Principal of the school towards the implementation of the RTI Act, the Commission’s order of dated 18.5.2007 has not been complied with, which is unfortunate The Director (Edu.), Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi is therefore directed to initiate appropriate action against the school, including cancellation/withdrawl of it’s recognition, as the school has chosen to function in a manner which is not duly transparent and is, thus, inconsistent with the ethos and purpose of the RTI Act. An action taken report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
12. Moreover, because of non-compliance of decision of the Commission of 18th May, 2007, at least two additional hearing were unnecessarily conducted at the instance of the respondent. And, the appellant had to attend the hearing, which resulted in incurring of avoidable expenditure on travel, loss of resources and time. The Director (Education), on behalf of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi should explain as to why a suitable compensation, u/s 19(8) (b) of the Act, should not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him. On behalf of the Directorate of Education, the Director of Education should explain on the date and time, as mentioned above, and may also appear for personal hearing in the matter.
13. The Commission is constrained to observe that a large number of officials of the Directorate of Education, in general, and the PIOs/Appellate Authorities, in particular, have failed to appreciate the spirit of the Act for promotion of openness in their functioning. The Director (Edu.), Dte. Of Education is therefore directed to organize education & training program for its officials, as mandated u/s 26 of the Act, in order to equip them for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act.
14. The compliance of the decision, as above, would be reviewed by the Commission in due course.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri D.K. Chopra, A/A 1039, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. Mrs. Salinder Kaur, PIO & DDE(SWE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education,
O/o Dy. Director of Education, District South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Dr. R.A. Yadav, DD(Inspection) (the then CPIO in this case), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar, Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli, Principal, Poorna Prajna Public School, D-III, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110070.
Block-IV, 5th Floor,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Website: http://www.cic.gov.in/
(Adjunct to Decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated, 14th May, 2007)
Decision No. 1231 /IC(A)/2007
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00104
Dated, the 12th September, 2007
Name of the Appellant: Shri D.K. Chopra.
Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi
Facts: 1. The appellant had asked for certain information, which were furnished, except the minutes of the Managing Committee (MC) of Purna Prajna Public School, Vasant Kumj, New Delhi. The Commission examined the appeal and made the following observations in it’s decision No. 714/IC(A)/2007 dated 18th May, 2007:-
• The PIO is directed to obtain, u/s 2(f) of the Act, the minutes of the Managing
Committee meetings from March 2002 to March 2007 from the school and provide a
copy to the appellant.
• The information sought as above should be furnished within 15 working days from the
date of issue of this decision.
2. Subsequently, the appellant informed the Commission that the PIO has not complied with the above decision. The PIO, in turn, stated that he had no legal authority to obtain the information from the school.
3. Both the parties were therefore issued notices for a hearing again in the matter of non-compliance of above decision. The parties were heard on 20th August , 2007 and 12th September, 2007. A representative of the PIO reiterated that under Delhi Education Act, the documents which could be obtained, are specified under Annexure-II in which the document, namely minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of schools is not included. The Department of Education was therefore unable to acquire the minutes of the Managing Committee from the concerned school as directed by the Commission. Though an official of the respondent is a member of the MC, the PIO has however no access to the minutes of MC, it was contended.
Decision:
4. The main issue that emanate from the foregoing is that the Government of Delhi has no control on the functioning of un-aided schools and that it cannot access the minutes of MCs under any law, which is un-acceptable to the Commission.
5. A major objective of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in functioning of the institutions, particularly the service providers that have considerable interface with a larger section of people. The documents, in question, contain such information that foretell about the health and vitality of the schools, which are responsible for preparing our children to lead the nation. Moreover, the information asked for is an outcome of deliberations of the major stakeholders – school authorities, teachers, representatives of PTA and the Government of Delhi. The minutes of MCs are thus already in public domain, as these are circulated among the members. How can it be treated as confidential or secret? Unfortunately, the Principal of the school and the PIO have connived to withhold the minutes of the MCs for reasons that contravene with the larger purpose of creating an information regime for good governance.
6. As the activities of the functionaries of the education sector have intense and pervasive influence on every human activity, the decisions taken by the Managing Committees have considerable implications for promoting quality education and the well-being of the entire society. Such documents, therefore, cannot be claimed as secret information by any school which performs a governmental function. The Principal of the school and the PIO have thus failed to appreciate the intent and purpose of the Act which seeks to promote people’s involvement in decision making processes and implementation of programs.
7. All the aided or unaided schools are performing governmental functions to promote high quality of relevant education. An official of the GNCT of Delhi is nominated by the Directorate of Education as a member of the Management Committee of all the schools. The nominated member of the Directorate of Education is therefore the custodian of the minutes of the MCs under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. And, there is no reason why such minutes, reflecting the aspects of governance of the school, should not be put in public domain. The Government has the control on the functioning of the schools and, therefore, it has access to the information asked for. And, so has a citizen.
8. Not only the land allotted to private educational institutes are provided at subsidized rates, but also the fees paid by the students/parents enjoy income-tax concession. There is thus some element of indirect Government funding in the activities of even private and un-aided schools. In view of this, the respondent, which is represented through its officials on the Managing Committee, is surely the custodian of the information asked for by the appellant. The decisions of the MCs have significant bearing on the life and career of the students as well as their parents / guardians and, therefore, there is no reason why the minutes of the Managing Committee should not be disclosed to the affected persons i.e. the citizens.
9. The PIO’s contention that the minutes of the MCs are not included in Annexure-II of Delhi Education Act and, therefore, he cannot acquire them is not acceptable, as Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 has an overriding effect on all such provisions that come in the way of promotion of transparency in functioning of the schools, the activities of which are governmental in nature. The PIO is directed again to furnish the information at the earliest under intimation to the Commission.
10. The then PIO Dr. R. A. Yadav and the present PIO Mrs. S. Kaur, DDE are also held in violation of section 7(1) of the Act. They are therefore directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on them us 20(1) of the Act, for their deliberate attempt to deny the information asked for by the appellant. Inspite the direction given by the Commission, they have made no worthwhile effort to acquire the document from the school or the nominated member of the respondent. They should submit their written submission and also appear for a personal hearing before the Commission on 12th October, 2007 at 2.00 p.m. (at 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place).
11. In view of lackadaisical attitude of the concerned PIO and the Principal of the school towards the implementation of the RTI Act, the Commission’s order of dated 18.5.2007 has not been complied with, which is unfortunate The Director (Edu.), Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi is therefore directed to initiate appropriate action against the school, including cancellation/withdrawl of it’s recognition, as the school has chosen to function in a manner which is not duly transparent and is, thus, inconsistent with the ethos and purpose of the RTI Act. An action taken report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
12. Moreover, because of non-compliance of decision of the Commission of 18th May, 2007, at least two additional hearing were unnecessarily conducted at the instance of the respondent. And, the appellant had to attend the hearing, which resulted in incurring of avoidable expenditure on travel, loss of resources and time. The Director (Education), on behalf of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi should explain as to why a suitable compensation, u/s 19(8) (b) of the Act, should not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him. On behalf of the Directorate of Education, the Director of Education should explain on the date and time, as mentioned above, and may also appear for personal hearing in the matter.
13. The Commission is constrained to observe that a large number of officials of the Directorate of Education, in general, and the PIOs/Appellate Authorities, in particular, have failed to appreciate the spirit of the Act for promotion of openness in their functioning. The Director (Edu.), Dte. Of Education is therefore directed to organize education & training program for its officials, as mandated u/s 26 of the Act, in order to equip them for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act.
14. The compliance of the decision, as above, would be reviewed by the Commission in due course.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri D.K. Chopra, A/A 1039, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. Mrs. Salinder Kaur, PIO & DDE(SWE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education,
O/o Dy. Director of Education, District South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Dr. R.A. Yadav, DD(Inspection) (the then CPIO in this case), Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
4. Shri Vijay Kumar, Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
5. Dr. (Mrs.) R. Kohli, Principal, Poorna Prajna Public School, D-III, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110070.
No comments:
Post a Comment