Delhi High Court Orders Damodar Valley Corporation To Pay ₹75,000 To RTI Applicant, Sets Aside CIC's 'Sweeping Observations'
Setting aside the observations made by Central Information Commission (CIC) against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the costs imposed by the statutory body against its CPIO in a RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Public Sector Undertaking to pay a cost of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of the long-drawn battle he had...
Setting aside the observations made by Central Information Commission (CIC) against Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and the costs imposed by the statutory body against its CPIO in a RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Public Sector Undertaking to pay a cost of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of the long-drawn battle he had to undertake.
"The only issue that now remains is whether Respondent No. 2 who has been litigating since 2016 has to be awarded any litigation costs in the matter. In the opinion of the Court, while disagreeing with the approach of the CIC of making sweeping observations, in view of the long-drawn battle that the Respondent had to undertake, the ends of justice would be met by awarding costs of Rs.75,000/- to Respondent No.2," said the court.
The CIC in 2018 had directed the DVC to pay a compensation of Rs 1 Lakh to the RTI applicant and further imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the CPIO. The decision was challenged by the DVC before the high court.
The Case
A Junior Engineer in the DVC suffered sexual harassment while working at the DVC. Her husband filed an RTI application in 2016 to the National Commission for Women (NCW), seeking status of the sexual harassment complaint filed by his wife in 2012.
The NCW forwarded the RTI application to DVC. Not satisfied by the response given by DVC, the applicant approached the Appellate Authority and thereafter, the CIC.
The CIC, in its order, held that the applicant’s wife was victimised for complaining against the accused and that the powerful lobby promoted the accused and harassed the victim by transferring her to different places. Further, it observed that for years there was no inquiry in the complaint filed by the complainant-victim, and when she sought help from NCW, it simply forwarded the complaint to DVC.
Observing that NCW is not a post office which can simply forward the complaints to the concerned office and wash off its hands, the CIC said that the DVC provided information only after the intervention of the Commission.
The Challenge
Challenging the order passed by the CIC, the counsel representing the DVC argued that the decision goes much beyond the RTI application. The court was told that the CIC took into consideration various factors that are extraneous and have no bearing on the case.
"As part of this order, the CIC has made several sweeping observations in respect of victimisation and has also made comments about various other authorities including the NCW. The findings of victimisation are also completely unconnected to the RTI complaint, inasmuch as the case before the CIC was not in respect of the sexual harassment complaint but only as to whether the information which was sought was submitted or not," the senior counsel representing CIC said.
DVC further submitted that various observations have been made by the CIC in respect of the amendments to Section 376 IPC, the MeToo movement, the film industry as well as the NCW and the Ministry of Women and Child Development. It averred that cost of Rs one lakh has been imposed on DVC after considering all these extraneous issues, which is a wrong approach adopted by the CIC and is contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh at the outset noted that the court is not dealing with the sexual harassment allegations of the victim-complaint, but with the RTI application seeking status of the complaint.
"The Court has perused the CIC’s order. It is clear from a reading of the impugned order from paragraphs 7 till paragraphs 25 that the CIC has gone into various other extraneous issues including harassment in the film industry, measures taken by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, amendments to Section 376 IPC and other issues relating to sexual harassment including the Visakha case. While the observations are general in nature about sexual harassment and its effect etc., in the opinion of the Court, none of these observations which have been made by the CIC in the impugned order were called for in the present proceedings which arose out of a RTI application," the court said.
While taking note that the copy of the inquiry report has already been provided to RTI applicant, the court said, “Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that insofar as the observations made in CIC’s order is concerned, the grievances of DVC are not without merit.”
The court dismissed the contention that the DVC cannot challenge the penalty imposed on the CPIO in his individual capacity.
Observing that the CIC in the same order has also imposed penalty on DVC, the bench said, “The CPIO is merely an officer who acts on behalf of the Corporation. A CPIO is not acting in his individual capacity. He was issued notice by the CIC and a written statement has been filed. DVC has defended itself before the CIC. Under such circumstances, the submission that the penalty imposed on the CPIO cannot be challenged by the Corporation is without merit.”
Referring to the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act which empower the CIC to impose penalties on PIOs, the court said that penalty can be imposed on the CPIO, if CIC is of the view that any of the grounds laid down in the provision are made out.
Section 20 provides that the CIC/SIC may impose penalty on the CPIO/SPIO on certain grounds, including if it is of the opinion that the CPIO/SPIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished the information within the specified time or has malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect information.
Holding that the CIC has not given any such finding qua the CPIO, the court ruled that the penalty of Rs.25,000 imposed on the CPIO cannot be sustained.
While disagreeing with the CIC’s approach of making sweeping observations, the court set aside the observations made by CIC against DVC. However, the court directed the DVC to pay Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant within a period of four weeks.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee and Mr. Srija Choudhary and Ms. Kavya Jhavar, Advs
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Paras Jain and Mr. Ashotosh Chaturvedi, Advocates for R-2. Mr. K.C. Dubey, Mr. Mahender Kumar Bharadwaj and Mr. Vatan Kumar Attri, Advocates for R-3
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 111