President???S Secretariat vs Nitish Kumar Tripathi
2012 Latest Caselaw 3732 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

               Judgment reserved on: 29.05.2012

%              Judgment delivered on: 14.06.2012


+                          W.P.(C) 3382/2012



      PRESIDENT'S SECRETARIAT                         .... Petitioner
                     Through:       Mr. A.S. Chandhiok,ASG, along
                                    with Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC.
                  versus

      NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI                          ....   Respondent
                     Through:


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI


                              JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner President's Secretariat, through its Secretary,

has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to assail the order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by

the Central Information Commission, New Delhi (CIC), whereby the

appeal preferred before it by the respondent has been allowed, and

directions have been issued to the petitioner to provide information

under the Right to Information Act (the Act) sought by the respondent

in relation to the donations made by the President from time to time.

A direction has also been issued to the petitioner to take steps to

publish the details regarding the donations made i.e. the names of the

recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of

donation in each case, on the website of the President's Secretariat at

the earliest.

2. Nine RTI applications had been moved by the respondent

before the petitioner. Most of the information had been provided.

However, information in relation to the donations made by the

President from time to timer was not disclosed by invoking Section 8

(1) (j) of the Act i.e. by treating the information as personal

information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public

interest. The Ld. CIC has, however, rejected the said defence of the

petitioner, and has directed disclosure of the information.

3. The submission of learned ASG Sh. A.S. Chandhiok, firstly, is

that a perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has equated

donations made by the President with subsidy, which is not the case.

It is also submitted that the learned CIC has not dealt with the

petitioner's submissions founded upon Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. It is

also argued that the right to privacy of third parties would be

breached, in case such disclosure is made. In any event, the right of

third parties/recipients of the donation, to oppose disclosure by resort

to Section 11 has not been dealt with. It is argued that the matter

requires consideration, and the petition should be admitted for further

hearing by the court. Mr. Chandhiok submits that the CIC has not

followed its earlier decision rendered in Appeal No.

CIC/WB/A/2009/000217 dated 18.12.2009, wherein it had been held

that the queriest had no right to seek information in relation to

donations made from out of the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

4. Having heard the learned ASG, perused the impugned order

as well as the Provisions of the Act, I do not find any merit in either of

the submissions of Mr. Chandihok, and in my view the impugned order

is perfectly legal and does not call for interference by this court in

exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the donations

made by the President are out of public funds. Public funds are those

funds which are collected by the state from the citizens by imposition

of taxes, duties, cess, services charges, etc. These funds are held by

the state in trust for being utilized for the benefit of the general public.

During the course of arguments, I repeatedly raised a specific query to

the learned ASG. It was enquired whether the donations have been

made from a separate fund created from out of voluntary

contributions/donations made by the people, and placed at the hands

of the President for being further disbursed by him/her, in his/her

discretion, to the deserving and needy people. However, I did not get

an answer in the affirmative. It was also enquired whether the

President is disbursing the donations from out of a public fund as noted

by the learned CIC in his order. Even to this, there was no denial.

6. The aforesaid being the position, the reliance placed by the

petitioner on the earlier decision of the CIC dated 18.12.2009,

pertaining to the disclosure of information under the Act in relation to

the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, would have no application to the facts

of the present case, assuming for the sake of arguments that the said

decision of the CIC takes the correct view. Since this Court is not

concerned with the disclosures vis-à-vis the Prime Ministers Relief

Fund, the said issue is not being dealt with herein. In any event, unlike

in the case of the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, in the present case, the

donations have been made by the Hon'ble President of India from the

tax payers money. Every citizen is entitled to know as to how the

money, which is collected by the State from him by exaction has been

utilized. Merely because the person making the donations happens to

be the President of India, is no ground to withhold the said information.

The Hon'ble President of India is not immune from the application of

the Act. What is important is, that it is a public fund which is being

donated by the President, and not his/her private fund placed at

his/her disposal for being distributed/donated amongst the needy and

deserving persons.

7. The learned ASG has submitted that the disclosure of

information with regard to the donations made by the President would

impinge on the privacy of the persons receiving the donations, as their

financial distress, other circumstances, and need would become public.

8. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the

learned ASG. Firstly, I may note that the learned CIC has directed

disclosure of some basic information, such as the names of the

recipients of the donations, their addresses and the amount of

donation made in each case. Further details i.e. the facts of each

case, and the justification for making the donation have not been

directed to be provided. Even if further details are sought by a querist

in relation to any specific instance of donation made by the President,

the same would have to be dealt with in terms of the Act. There could

be instances where the entire details may not be disclosed by resort to

Sections 8, 10 and 11 of the Act. However, it cannot be said that mere

disclosure of the names, addresses and the amounts disbursed to each

of the donees would infringe the protection provided to them Under

Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

9. The donations made by the President of India cannot said to

relate to personal information of the President. It cannot be said that

the disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of

the privacy of, either the President of India, or the recipient of the

donation. A person who approaches the President, seeking a donation,

can have no qualms in the disclosure of his/her name, address, the

amount received by him/her as donation or even the circumstance

which compelled him or her to approach the First Citizen of the country

to seek a donation. Such acts of generosity and magnanimity done by

the President should be placed in the public domain as they would

enhance the stature of the office of the President of India. In that

sense, the disclosure of the information would be in the public interest

as well.

10. The submission of Mr. Chandihok that the learned CIC has

confused donations with subsidy is not correct. The CIC has

consciously noted that donations are being made by the President

from the public fund. It is this feature which has led the learned CIC to

observe that donations from out of public fund cannot be treated

differently from subsidy given by the Government to the citizens under

various welfare schemes. It cannot be said that the CIC has

misunderstood donations as subsidies. The relevant extract from the

order of the CIC reads as follows:-

"We do not find the decision of the CPIO in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. In fact, every public authority is mandated under Section 4 (1) (b) (xii) of the RTI Act to publish on its own the details of the beneficiaries of any kind of subsidy given by the government. The donations given by the President of India out of the public

funds cannot be treated differently from the subsidy given by the government given to the citizens under various welfare schemes. The people of India have a right to know about such donations. Some minimum details, such as, the names of the receivers of the donations, their address and the amount of donation in each case should be published from time to time in the website of the President Secretariat itself. Therefore, we not only direct the CPIO to provide this information to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order, we also direct him to take steps to publish such details in the website of the President Secretariat at the earliest."

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition

and dismiss the same. The interim order stands vacated.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

JUNE 14, 2012 pkv