CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428

Om Prakash Hans Vs. Home Department, GNCTD

Important Dates and time taken:

RTI/PIO:12­9/1­10­14(19) FA/FAO:14­11/23­12­14(39) Second appeal:19­3­2015

Show cause issued Hearing: 26­6­2015 Decision:2­7­2015

Parties Present:

The appellant is present. The Public Authority is not represented by any officer.

Facts:

2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for information regarding action taken on his

complaints dated 26.8.304 and 28.08.2014. PIO replied on 01.10.2014 stating that one complaint

dated 26.08.2014 and other two complaints dated 28.08.2014 had been sent to Director General

(Prisons) by office letter dated 11.09.2014 with the request to furnish action taken on the matter.

Being unsatisfied with the information furnished appellant filed first appeal. FAA by his order

dated 23.12.2014 disposed of the appeal stating that the desired information has been already

provided to the appellant. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached Commission.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428 Page 1
DECISION:

3. The appellant made his submissions. The Public Authority is not represented. The appellant

submitted that he had made 3 complaints to the Public Authority ­1) regarding the improper

treatment given to him with respect to his shortened leg, while he was in jail, because of which

made him permanently handicapped, 2) wages to be paid for the period he had worked on

computer for the authority 3) illegal detention beyond the period of jail term, even though he was

given remission for 18 days. He submitted that he sought action taken report on all the three

complaints, but nothing was provided. Instead, the PIO/Home department directed him to

approach DG(Prisons), who in turn directed him to the Home Department. Thus he had suffered

a lot without getting any relief or information about his complaints.

4. The appellant has a grievance that he was unnecessarily kept in prison beyond term on

the pretext that he was needed to be produced in a different case. They did not enquire about

other case before expiration of term. They kept him in jail for some days on the excuse that they

were ‘holidays’ for courts etc. This means that prisoner was detained beyond the period of term.

5. ‘Excessive detention’ like this is a matter of serious concern, as that violates right to

personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21, which says:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

procedure prescribed by law.

6. Appellant’s personal liberty can be deprived only till the term of imprisonment prescribed by

court of law continues and not even a day beyond. Strategically, we hear that, the individuals are

arrested during night of Friday so that they will not be in a position to move the court of law till

Monday. Such detention would be absolute violation of Article 21 and it could be both a crime and

tort (civil wrong) also.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court said in its land mark judgment in Rudul Shah v State of

Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086 that “the imprisonment would be unlawful the moment its lawful

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428 Page 2
justification is withdrawn”. Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Justice Amarendranath Sen,

Justice Ranganath Misra said regarding compensation for illegal detention:

Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if

the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the

telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance

with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary

compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights

cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to

compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of

public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If

civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well­known to

suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of

individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by

its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.

8. If there is such a violation, and there is no internal mechanism to redress that grievances, the

individual like appellant in this case, will have no other go except to file a writ petition before the

constitutional courts or civil or criminal courts seeking remedy for wrongful detention. It shows that

the public authority does not have any internal mechanism to prevent such practices, and to take

action to redress such grievances. It is not proper on the part of public authority, first to detain the

prisoners beyond the term, not to have any mechanism to receive, hear and provide remedy for

excessive detention, and not even giving correct information to the prisoner seeking under RTI

Act.

9. The Commission noticed that contentions of prisoner appellant reveal a prima facie case of

excessive detention and that there no specific mechanism to take complaints of extra detention

and provision for compensation in such cases. The Commission recommends public authority to

frame a policy for this purpose and disclose the same under Section 4 (1)(c) of RTI Act, which

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428 Page 3
says: “PUBLISH ALL RELEVANT FACTS WHILE FORMULATING IMPORTANT POLICIES OR

ANNOUNCING DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT PUBLIC”. If they do not have a policy, and that

affects the public, the public authority should explain why they do not have a policy on such an

important issue. Thus they have a duty to frame a policy and disclose the same to the public.

10. The Commission directs the respondent authority to consider this RTI application as

‘complaint’ of excessive detention, inquire into the allegation of excessive detention from 15th

August to 19 August 2014, fix responsibility on the officer concerned for not releasing him, and

give the action taken report within one month from the date of receipt of this order, giving the

appellant reasonable opportunity to present his case, also considering the possibility of

compensating if the extra­detention beyond the sentence is found.

11. The Commission also directs the PIOs of Home Department and the DG(Prisons) to

furnish information about the status of the three complaints dated 26­8­2014, 28­8­2014 and 28­8­

2014 to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further

directs the PIOs of Home/DG(Prisons) to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on

them for not furnishing the information or not­transferring the RTI application to the concerned PIO

and thus violating the provisions of the RTI Act. They are also directed to explain why

compensation should not be granted to the appellant for the hardship he had undergone for non­

furnishing of information about detention and medical negligence. Their explanation should reach

the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy

(Babu Lal)

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428 Page 4
Deputy Registrar.

Address of the parties :

1. The PIO under RTI, Govt. of Delhi

Home Department, Delhi Sachivalaya
IP Estate, New Delhi­110002

2. The PIO under RTI, Govt. of Delhi

O/o Director General of Prisons,
Prison Headquarters: TIHAR
Janak Puri
New Delhi­110058

3. Shri Om Prakash Hans

2034, Sector­7,
Block­D, Faridabad, HARYANA
PIN: 121006

CIC/SA/A/2015/000428 Page 5