CIC Directs NIC to Submit Details Regarding the Website 'Aarogyasetu'

CIC Directs NIC to Submit Details Regarding the Website  'Aarogyasetu'

The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the National Information Informatics Centre (NIC) to explain in writing who is the concerned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to explain regarding Government of India and Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MEITY) maintaining the app.

The CPIO and NIC also should explain that when in the website it is mentioned that Aarogya Setu Platform is designed, developed and hosted by National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, then how is it possible that they do not have any information about creation of the App.

The order was passed by Information Commissioner Vanaja N Sarna in relation to an application filed under the RTI Act seeking details concerning the creation of the Aarogya Setu app.

The Commission accepted the matter as it was related to right to privacy which is an essence of right to life and liberty deemed it fit to provide an opportunity of early hearing to the complainant and accordingly the hearing was fixed on priority basis.

The RTI applicant and also the complainant, Mr. Saurav Das in his complaint to the Commission, stated that there was no reply given by the CPIO, National E-Governance Division, MEITY and CPIO. He further submitted that he had filed this RTI application seeking to get information about the process of creation of Aarogya Setu App and other information relating to its creation.

The complainant strongly pleaded that, nobody had any information on how the App was created, the files relating to its creation, who had given inputs for this App's creation, what audit measures exists to check for misuse of the personal data of millions of Indians.

Whether any protocols for user data have been developed and with whom this data is being shared with. Despite the fact that any omissions and commissions by these public authorities and any failure to perform their duties as outlined and mandated under the Protocol, 2020 could essentially lead to security compromise of millions of Indian's personal and user data.

It was contended that it would be a grave breach of fundamental right to privacy on a massive scale and threaten people's constitutionally guaranteed right to life and liberty.

After hearing the averments of all the concerned parties and also the CPIO and NIC who was present in this case, the Commission highlighted relevant Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (RTI) cannot be used by public authorities to push off the matter. However, the complainant's plea that the CPIO, National E-Governance Division, MEITY should be penalised under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for willfully and repeatedly refusing to act in conformity with the RTI Act despite sending repeated reminders requesting them to furnish the information seems correct in the absence of a reasoned and justifiable reply from the CPIOs concerned.

The Commission took cognizance of the present complaint u/s 18(f) of the RTI Act and as per the mandate under that provision it was necessary to identify the source/custodian of information in respect of the complainant's request for obtaining access to records under the Act.

The Commission observed, that "the addressees cannot simply wash their hands off by stating that the information is not available with them. Some effort should have been put in to find out the custodian(s) of the information sought, by the concerned public authorities when apparently they are the relevant parties."

Furthermore, the Information Commissions are the implementing agencies/machinery. The right to access to information has only exemptions provided in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Government of the people means the information should be open to public for informed Citizenry.

The Commission directed the CPIOs to appear before the bench next on 24th November, 2020 to explain why penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on them for prima facie obstruction of information and providing an evasive reply.

Further the Commission directed them that, The CPIO and NIC shall also submit written submissions detailing their role in creation of the website aarogyasetu with the domain name gov.in. The CPIO, National E-Governance Division are also required to explain the delay of of 2 months in replying to the RTI application.