CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01219 dated 8.12.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19 Appellant - Shri Ajit Kar Respondent - Delhi Police Facts: By an application of 27.2.2007 Shri Ajit Kar of Satya Niketan, New Delhi applied to the PIO Addl. Commr. Of Police (Gen. Admn) seeking answers to 45 questions with a number of sub questions regarding the application of laws & rules with regard to the Delhi Police. This application was transferred by an order of PIO Shri Deepender Pathak, Addl. C.P. PHQ to the following: 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) South Distt. PS Hauz Khas, Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) West Distt. P.S.Rajouri Garden, Delhi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) South West Distt. PS Vasant Vihar, Delhi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO), North Distt. Behind PS Civil Lines, Delhi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Central Distt. PS Daryaganj, Delhi. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) North West Distt. PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) CWC Nanakpura, Delhi. 8. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) East Distt. PS Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. 9. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) North East Distt. Seelampur, Delhi. 10. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) IGI Airport, Domestic Airport, Delhi. 1
11. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Crime & Railways, IP Estate, Delhi. 12. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) New Delhi Distt. P.S. Parliament Street, Delhi. 13. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) PCR, Model Town, Delhi. 14. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Vigilance Delhi Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. 15. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) D.E. Cell Delhi Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. 16. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PIO) Special Branch, Delhi Police Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. To this, then, appellant Shri Kar received multiple responses, as follows: 1. On 8.3.07 from Police Control Room, as follows: Information Sought Point No. 1 to 13 Point No. 14 Please give information like rank, belt No. of the following officers where they have been appointed at present, their telephone number and what was the year of their joining in Delhi Police and what credible & incredible work yet they have done in Delhi Police. Please inform the information about them which is not given down : A to D E Mr. Paras Nath, Belt No. 5513/PCR 542/D in PCR. Point No. 15 to 33 Point No. 34 Please give the character and antecedent as per Delhi Police record in connection with the following persons also give if any official achievement or delinquency has been kept in record in any manner again given since when the police officers have been working Reply of PCR Unit. Does not relate to PCR Unit. This information is exempted from disclosure under sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 Does not relate to PCR Unit. This information is exempted from disclosure under sec. 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. 2
in Delhi Police also give the address of their present office and their telephone No. 1 to 7 8. Mr. Paras Nath, Belt No. 5513/PCR 545 D in PCR Point No. 35 to 45 Does not relate to PCR Unit. 2. Again on 8.3.07 from D.C.P. (DE Cell) as follows: Point No. 2 Point No. 8 Point No. 9 Point No. 10 Point No. 13 Point No. 14 The Departmental Enquiry is ordered by the disciplinary authority (DCP) / competent authority as per the facts of the matter. There is no provision for de novo Enquiry under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. This office deals with the Departmental Enquiries as ordered by the competent authority as per the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Matter can be taken up with disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority for appropriate orders. This office deals with the Departmental Enquiries ordered by the Disciplinary/Competent Authority. No upper and lower subordinate mentioned in point No. 14 either temporary or permanently posted in DE Cell. 3. On 21.3.07 from DCP (North Distt.) as follows: Reply : Reference your application dated 27.2.07 addressed to Addl. CP (General Administration), which received in this office on 5.3.07, vide his office memo No. XXIV/29/Spl./213/2/07/1659-66/C&T/AC-II)/PHQ dated 1.3.2006, on the subject cited above, I am to give pointwise reply as follows: 1 Offences covered under heads i.e. Murder, Attempt to Murder, Dacoity, Robbery and Rape are treated as heinous crime. List of sections are 302, 307, 376, 392, 394, 397 IPC. Arrest is made as per provision of Cr.P.C. 2 Departmental enquiry is instituted on the receipt of any complaint or information against the delinquent officer at the direction of disciplinary authority. Any request for initiating departmental enquiry will be scrutinized on merits as and when made. 3 The local police should take the complaint in writing from the victim who is willing to give the same at the scene of crime. At a given situation where law and order are prime concern 3
the same may be collected at a convenient location, which is safe and peaceful. 4 Generally the informant is not compelled to accompany the local police to Police Station, but he can be compelled if he is at fault and complaint is made by someone else regarding the offence committed by him. 5 When cognizable offence is committed between two or more parties involved in the incident, cross FIRs may be registered. 6 All officers of North District have been directed to follow the instructions given in Citizen Charter. 7 The question is not specific, hence cannot be replied to. to 10 11 As per provision of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, a separate file is opened and entries made in the concerned register containing the name and address of such person and other related information. The SHO uses the information for maintenance of law and order under his jurisdiction under the control of supervisory officer. The names of such persons are removed on constant good behaviour by the order of DCP of the area. 12 As stated at Point No. 11 above. 13 As per the receipt of the complaint/information, a fact-finding enquiry is conducted. In a given circumstances preliminary enquiry as well as departmental enquiry can also be conducted subsequently. 14 It does not relate to North District. 15 These are related to Special Branch to 23 24 These are related to Special Branch to 27 28 The record is based on true facts only. 29 As stated at Point No. 11 above 30 You can complain to the A.C.P. Sub Division of the area firstly. 31 The question is not specific. 32 As stated at Point No. 11 above 33 It does not relate to North District. 34 It does not relate to North District. 35 It depends upon circumstances and nature of crime committed by the offender 36 As stated at Point Nos. 11 & 35 above 37 It does not relate to North District. 38 It does not relate to North District. 4
39 The I.O. of cognizable complaint has the powers, functions and duties as given by the law of country / Cr.P.C. to investigate it for the purpose of bringing the truth on record and ensure the attendance of guilty / accused as well as the witnesses / other concerned persons before the court. 40 It does not relate to North District. 41 In accordance with the existing laws / Rules of the Country. 42 Every police personnel is bound to perform duty, take action, as per sec. 154 of Cr.P.C. and other laws in force. 43 Action is initiated as per procedure laid down in sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C. 44 Comments not required 45 Comments not required 4. On 26.3.07 from DCP (Crime) answering questions 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 to 23, 29, 31, 33 to 36, 39, 41, 42 & 45 in the form of a chart of questions and answers. 5 On 26.3.07 from DCP (Special Branch) seeking to answer questions 15 to 22. 6. On 3.4.07 from DCP (South West) as follows: 1 Arrest in all cognizable cases is mandatory. If sufficient evidence found against the accused. However, case pertaining to Murder 302, IPC, Attempt to Murder 307 IPC, Dacoity 395 IPC, Robbery 392/394 IPC, Rape-376 IPC, Riots 147/148/149 IPC and Kidnapping for ransom are heinous crime. 2 There is no limitation for departmental enquiry against alleged police personnel. 3 It depends on the situation and circumstances of the case / incident. 4 Officer should take complaint, whenever complainant feel comfortable, whether it at the spot or police post. 5 When both parties complaint against each other and after enquiry it shows that both committed a cognizable offence, then cross FIR has been lodged. 6 In the citizen s charter, pre-arrest, arrest and after arrest are clearly mentioned. All Police officers are doing accordingly with citizen charter. 7 Whenever the telephone No. charged, at the time of publication of citizen charter, number has been corrected. Although public may know the correct No. after dialing 100 No. 5
8,9 & It relates to D.E. Cell 10 11 The record of only those persons who are involved in criminal cases is maintained in the Police Station. If the case is acquitted or discharged by the court entry has been made against such involvement. 12 Any person involved in a criminal case, his record maintained in police station under the supervision of Addl. SHO. 13 It is an administrative matter. However, you may take help from books. 14 No, one is posted in this Distt. at this time. 15 Delhi Police verify only antecedents of a person and not character 16 Criminal record and antecedents are verified only of these persons, who involved in criminal cases only. 17 The facts about the antecedents of the person are collected from the record kept in police station also these are collected from the public. 18 The information is kept in the record depending upon its nature. 19 The accessible information will be provided as per RTI Act 20 The accessible information will be provided as per RTI Act 21 Such information is given for official use. 22 The character and antecedent of a person residing of out side Delhi can be obtained as and when required officially. 23 The record of those persons who involved in criminal case is maintained. Police officer can get the record of a criminal for official use only. 24,25, It relates to Special Cell. 26 & 27 28 An innocent person has not been bounded u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. 29 The record is kept update. If a person is acquitted from the court. The same is not used in future. 30 No, one can obtain the record of other person. 31 You may approach the immediate In-charge of P.S. or Sr. Officer 32 As and when the criminal is arrested the antecedent is verified and kept under the custody of Record Mohrar of the concerned police Station. 33 Criminal record of a person is kept in police station. 34 Since the matter belongs to various, the same cannot be provided in view of sec. 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005. 35 A person who repeatedly commit the crime is habitual 6
offender. 36 A person is degraded a bad character, according to the rule mentioned in the PPR. 37 & Power to the police officers are given in Cr.P.C., D.P. Act 38 and Punjab Police Rules. 39 You may read Cr.P.C. to know the powers, functions and duty of I.O. 40 Mentioned at Point No. 37 & 38 41 It is mentioned in Cr. P,.C., P.P.R. and D.P. Act. 42 Mentioned at Point No. 37 & 38 43 On receiving the complaint police officer enquire the matter and then action is taken according to law. 44 The requisite information does not fall under the category of sec. 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. 45 It is an administrative matter 7. On 2.4.07 from DCP (Vigilance) as follows: Pt. Replies. No. 2 The question is not clear 8 As per Rules 16.10 of Delhi Police (Punishment & appeal) Rules, 1980 only disciplinary authority is competent for de novo enquiry (Supplementary enquiry) 9 There is no difference between inquiry and enquiry in connection with departmental proceedings. 10 As per Rule 23 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, an appeal against the punishment awarded by DCPs/Addl. DCPs can be made to the respective Addl. CPs/Jt. CPs. The Appeal against the punishment awarded by Addl. CPs/Jt. CPs/Spl. CPs can be made to the C.P., Delhi. 8. On 30.3.07 from DCP (North East) 9. On 30.3.07 from DCP (East) 10. On 10.4.07 from DCP (West) 11. On 11.4.07 from DCP, IGI Airport Upon this appellant Shri Kar moved a number of first appeals to JCP (PHQ), Ad.CP (PHQ), JCP (New Delhi Range) and JCP (Operations) with the following identical request: 7
It is respectfully requested that the information not given accurately or denied deliberately or otherwise may kindly be caused to be given to the appellant soon prior to the appellant approaches to the CIC/SIC and necessary measures may be taken soon. Consequently, he received orders from JCP (Southern Range) on 4.6.07 and 9.6.07, Addl. CP (Gen. Admn) PHQ on 25.5.07, JCP (Special Cell) on 22.5.07, JCP (Operations) on 14.6.07, JCP (New Delhi Range) on 4.6.07, Ad. CP (Vigilance) on 18.5.07 and Addl. C.P. (Crime) on 25.5.07. Appellant s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below: 1. That the respondent may be ordered to supply specific accurate information in time & let them reply the question raised in this appeal. 2. That the cost may be granted to the appellant. 3. That any other relief this commission deems fit may award in favour of the appellant in the interest of justice. He has sought condoning of the delay on the following grounds: It is respectfully requested that the appellant may kindly be condoned for any delay as : i) The appellant is too busy with more than 200 judicial & non-judicial cases RTI applications and appeals. ii) The appellant being a small teacher for asstt. Professor, Principals, Judges, directors etc. for various competitive examinations and interviews both technical & non technical & there being the bell ringing for the final tests of some groups of students, under clutches of high responsibility a few days negligibly might be elapsed & thus submitted to be condoned in the interest of justice. The appeal was heard on 15.1.2009. The following are present: Appellant Shri Ajit Kar Respondents 8
Sh. N. K. Meena, ACP / N Sh. Darshan Lal, SI / RTI Cell North Sh. Surender, ASI / Crime, AA Sh. Ganga Sahai Meena, ACP / HQ / East Sh. Sharad Agarwal, DCP/West Sh. L.C. Jain, LA / CP Sh. Alok Kumar, DCP / Spl. Cell Ms. Shanti, ACP / PCR Sh. Narender Kumar ASI / RTI Cell / PCR Sh. Satya Prakash -do- Sh. Suraj Bhan Gautam, SO i/c RTI Cell / NE Sh. Surender Singh Yadav,IPS, DCP / NE Sh. Mohan Singh Bais, ACP / HQ / C&T Sh. Rajesh Kumar, DCP / DE Cell Dr. Ajit Kumar Singla, ADCP / S. Branch Sh. Anil Kumar Kaushik, ASI / SB Sh. Satyendra Garg,IPS, Addl. CP / Crime Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP / SW Mr. Neeraj Thakur,IPS PIO/Crime Mr. V. S. Joon, ACP / HQ NAD Mr. R. P. Upadhyaya, Addl. CP / Vig. (AA) Sh. S. S. Yadav, ACP / West Distt. We have in addition received requests for leave of absence from Dr. P. S. Bhushan, DCP PCR, Shri Ajay Kumar, DCP Security and Sh. Kewal Singh, Ad.CP PHQ, which have been accepted. We have also received a written response to our appeal notice from Dr. P.S. Bhushan, DCP, PCR and Sh. Alok Kumar, DCP Special Cell, New Delhi dated 7.1.09 and 14.1.09 respectively. Dr. P. S. Bhushan in his written response has submitted as follows: Point No. 14 & 34 relate to PCR Unit vide which he has asked the belt No., rank, their telephone No., year of joining and information about credible & incredible work yet done in Delhi Police. Besides, he has also asked the character & antecedents in r/o Shri Paras Nath No. 5513/PCR, 542/D. As the same information is exempted from disclosure under sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 05, the applicant was informed, accordingly, vide this office letter No. 714/RTI Cell/PCR, dated 8.3.2007. However, the applicant filed an appeal dated 7.5.07 before Jt. Commissioner of Police (Operations), Delhi against the above said decision of PIO/PCR. 9
In view of the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 05, the appeal was decided by upholding the decision of PIO/PCR by the 1st Appellate Authority because the information asked by the appellant, was personal information and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. A reply to this effect was sent to him vide letter No. 400/P.Sec./Jt.CP/(Ops) dated 14.6.07. Shri Alok Kumar, DCP Special Cell has submitted as follows: a) The comprehensive information pertaining to Special Cell mentioned at S. No. 10 to 13 by Shri Ajit Kar in his application dated 8.3.07 has already been supplied to him, vide letter No. 1854/C&R Cell(RTI)/Spl. Cell, dated 5.4.07 (copy enclosed). b) It is wrong to state that no intimation was given to him about the transfer of his application to other different units, whereas his application was transferred to concerned PIOs vide ;No. 1357-64/C&R Cell/RTI/Spl. Cell dated 15.3.07 ( Copy enclosed) Besides, PIO/PHQ has also transfer his application to concerned PIOs vide No. XXIV/29/Spl./213/2/07/1659-66/C&T(AC-1) dated 1.3.07 under intimation to him ( Mr. Kar) ( Copy enclosed). c) His application (Appeal) received in this office on 7.5.07 was also responded by the 1st Appellate Authority vide No. 152/O.Sec./Jt. CP/Spl. Cell dated 22.5.07 (Copy enclosed). Appellant Shri Ajit Kar submitted that there was contradiction in the response received to various questions specifically questions 2, 3, 8, 10, 19, 29 & 33. He has also cited answers that he has obtained in his own personal cases which are in contradiction to the general rules, as explained in the response to his questions under RTI Act. DECISION NOTICE Having examined the records and heard the parties, we find that appellant Shri Ajit Kar has drawn upon his own experience to come to some general conclusions and has put his questions without reference to his own specific case in which he has found the contradictions. This has unavoidably led to a 10
multiplicity of response as no doubt the general questions raised have been dealt with differently since they were without reference to specific circumstances Be that it may, because the number of questions asked were extensive, police HQ had sought to pass on responsibility of answers to general questions of police administration to all Divisions and Units of the police in Delhi, without caring to assign the specific questions to any specific branch, leaving each to decide what applied to each and what did not. This was entirely uncalled for. PHQ could have referred specific questions to different Units but the style used was with the result that not only that entire police had been put to considerable inconvenience but also this Commission was confronted with the presence of almost the entire Senior Staff of Delhi Police save the senior officers of Police Headquarters itself. Appellant Sh. Ajit Kar himself has compounded this by moving a multiplicity of first appeals without specifying the exact questions to which he found the answers unsatisfactory and addressing these to the specific Appellate Authority concerned, in light of the fact that he had received responses from different wings of the Delhi Police. Himself a teacher, appellant Shri Kar should surely have been more painstaking in submitting his requests for information, Moreover his plea for condoning the time bar in second appeal verges on the frivolous. For these reasons we see no grounds whatever for appellant s plea for costs Having said that we find that the appellant Shri Ajit Kar has received answers to all his questions even when he has only sought interpretation of law, which was not required of the CPIOs. Where exemption has been sought by the CPIOs, however as in application of Sec 8 (1) sub-section (j), appellant has not pressed for disclosure. For this reason, we find the appeal unsustainable and it is hereby dismissed. 11
However, if appellant has found information received by him contradictory, it is open to him to move a fresh application before the PIO PHQ which will address itself to any such questions and provide specific answers to appellant Shri Ajit Kar within the parameters of the RTI Act within the time limit specified in sec. 7 sub section (1) therein. Announced in the hearing, but issued on this twenty-seventh day of January 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 27.1.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 27.1.2009 12