TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION

TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION
Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor,
New No.378, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018. Phone: 2431 2841
Case No,13399/Enquiry/2009
Date of Enquiry: 12 th September 2009 at CHENNAI
Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),
State Chief Information Commissioner
Thiru G. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S.,(Retd.),
State Information Commissioner
Petitioner: Tmt. S. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate,
2/1, First Main Road, Ashok Avenue,
Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082.
Public Authority: The Public Information Officer, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, Chennai – 600 008.
------
The petitioner was present and the public authority was
represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range, Guindy,
Chennai.
The petitioner filed an RTI petition asking for 28 queries on 2-4-
2009. This was a sequel to alleged non-investigation of a complaint of rape made
by her to the All Women Police Station, Guindy, and an attempt by the Police
station to settle the case by ‘Katta Panchayat’ instead of following the procedures
laid down by law and her inability to get justice even after making a complaint
right upto the Home Secretary. The application was made to the Public
Information Officer of the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Not
getting a reply, an appeal was made on 18-5-2009. The same day a reply was
received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range. The
petitioner found the reply to be incorrect and not as required under RTI Act, and
hence made a complaint to the Commission, received in the Commission’s office

on 29-7-2009. This is a bunch of similar complaints of related issues which have
been taken up for enquiry today (12-9-2009)
After going through the list of queries and the answers given, the
complaint in the second appeal is as follows:
The petitioner is a lawyer by profession who claims to have made a
petition on behalf of the original victim, who fears intimidation from the relevant
police authorities. The public authority summoned (viz.) the Public Information
Officer of the Commissionerate of Police, has not turned up for today’s enquiry,
but has requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range to
represent him.
Query No.4 asks about whether the concerned Police Inspector has
ever refused to register First Information Report or tried to settle the issues by
‘Katta Panchayat’ following the complaint by the accused in the Police station.
The reply given was in the negative, while the petitioner points out that the very
complaint she has made which is not enquired by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police himself has confirmed it in his
reply to query No. 23, 24 shows it to the wrong answer. The public authority has
also admitted that the case has been registered only on 16-4-2009, and hence
the First Information Report has not been registered on a complaint given in
person. The public authority represented that not all cases before All Women
Police Stations are registered as First Information Reports and a preliminary
enquiry is done before converting the complaint into First Information Report and
that his reply as given to the RTI petition with reference to things other than the
issues involved in the complaint in the current case. But, in so far as the fact
remains, there is an allegation of rape has been made in writing and that has not
been registered till eight months later for investigation as shown in the reply
given by the public authority himself. Therefore the complaint of wrong reply to
her is to be upheld.
Query No.6 asks for the certified copy of the service book of the
Inspector of Police, which was rejected on the ground that it is the personal
details of an officer. The service book contains record of service of an officer, and

it is a matter disclosed pro-actively under Section 4 of the RTI Act and as freely
held document in the office and it is not personal information, or an unwanted
invasion of the privacy of the individual. Hence the Commission finds refusal to
supply the service book unsustainable under the RTI Act.
Query No.7 asks as to why the Guindy All Women Police Station
Inspector declined to register FIR against the accused person Thiru Ramesh.
The reply states that the case has been registered in Crime No.03/2009 under
Section 376 read with Section 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code. But this is on 16-4-
2009 as confirmed by the public authority. Hence it is irrelevant reply to query
No.7.
Query No.9 has been deemed non-applicable while the second half
of the query asks about the reasons for not recording the information in General
Diary and Daily Diary, and why disciplinary action should not be initiated in this
regard, which has not been answered. Query No.10 and 11 asks about the
number of times and dates on which the victim and the accused and her parents,
etc were called for discussions and the Police constables and Head constables
and Sub-Inspectors who visited their house in this regard. The replies state that
such information is not available while the petitioner produced copies of the
document supplied to her by the public authority wherein some of the dates of
the visits has been noted, and the fact of having contacted the petitioner is also
penciled. The public authority states in defence that no General Diary entry was
there and this information of the document is only partial, which is difficult to
accept, as it is clearly seen that due diligence was not exercised in supplying the
information which is already available with the public authority.
Query No.12 has been answered by stating that the query is not
clear, which is not easy to sustain. On the other hand, the query itself is not a
proper query under Right to Information Act as it asks the opinion of the public
authority whether the action of the Inspector of Police would constitute a violation
of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature under the Right to
Information Act. Only the recorded information from the books of the public

authority can be asked for and opinion in an ethereal form would not be proper
query. Hence this may be left out of the enquiry.
Query 13 and 14 asks about the protection given to the alleged
victim in the light of the threat to kill the unborn baby extended by the accused
and the action taken to ensure safe delivery and if proper action is reported to
have been taken why should the victim complain to the Home Secretary and
whether the Home Secretary has sought any explanation on the basis of the
telegram sent to her. The reply speaks about the enquiry being conducted
pending with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range, and the case
was registered and further action taken. But this reply seems to be actions in the
post-RTI petition stage, while the query is about the action taken during the
sustenance of the pregnancy, which was before the RTI petition. Hence, it has to
be held that the reply is incorrect and that the fact that the Home Secretary has
sought a report has not been reported, which is an incomplete information.
Query No.17 to 20 asks similarly about investigation to secure DNA
samples of the baby as soon as it was born and protection of the rape of the
victim recognized as a cognizable offence and what prevented the action to be
taken including registration of the complaint under Indian Penal Code if the
offence of rape is made out of the complaint. The reply states that enquiry is
being conducted, but does not answer the query asked for, and considering the
fact that the alleged enquiry itself is registered post-RTI the reply which asks for
reasons for pre-RTI is unanswered.
Question No.23 asks about the persons who were enquired upon
the complaint made to the Home Secretary and copies of the files, and the reply
says that the Assistant Commissioner of Police enquired into the case and
certified copies of the record are furnished. The petitioner pointed out that
certified copies given to her are basically records forwarded by the very Police
Inspector complained against, and not papers regarding enquiry or application of
mind by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and as such the statement that
the Assistant Commissioner of Police conducting the enquiry is incorrect. The
public authority stated that the alleged victim had not answered the request to

present herself for enquiry and he has submitted all the papers available in the
office.
Hence, technically it is pointed out that the enquiry has not been
conducted as yet and it is only contemplated and as such the statement would be
on the margin that an enquiry is being conducted. Question No.27 and 28 asks
about the telephone record of the Inspector of Police complained against, and
the public authority replied that no information is available in his office
During the enquiry, the public authority stated that the Cell phone of
the Inspector of Police is the personal property of the Inspector and not provided
by the Government, and hence they do not have the record which is accepted.
Going into this case, the Commission finds that a number of points
as stated above have not been replied to properly under the Right to Information
Act. Therefore the Commissioner of Police is directed to:
a) Supply correct information on all the points where information supplied
is faulty or incomplete within a week of this order, obtain the acknowledgment
of the petitioner and file the same before the Commission. Information should be
supplied free of cost as Section 7(6) warrants that.
b) The allegation made in the first half of the petition and the comments
under it is brought to the personal attention of the Commissioner of Police to go
into. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai, may take up such investigation as
may be warranted under Criminal Procedure Code and Police Standing Order,
and other departmental instruction to see whether any serious misdemeanor by
any of the subordinate authorities including the Inspector of Police complained
against is warranted and take such action as he finds the police rule require. A
report on the action taken may also be filed before the Commission in four
weeks of this order.
c) Call for and file before the Commission the personal explanation of the
Public Information Officer for not having supplied the information as per the RTI
Act as to why Section 20(1) of the said Act should not be invoked against him.
d) File a report before the Commission as to why the Public Information
Officer of his office has not appeared before the Commission for enquiry today

(12 th September 2009), and how the Public Information Officer of the
Commissionerate of Police is not functioning as the Public Information Officer but
as an Officer of the Commissionerate and merely transferring petitions down the
line and signing as an officer on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and not as
Public Information Officer.
e) To file before the Commission his explanation within three weeks of
this order as to why a compensation of Rs.5000/- should not be awarded to the
petitioner for being forced to approach the Commission, as information should
have been provided straight-away for the straight forward queries.
Orders approved on 12 th October 2009
Under orders of the Commission
Case No,13399/Enquiry/2009
The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Case No,13399/Enquiry/2009
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Case No,13399/Enquiry/2009
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Assistant Commissionerr of Police,
Guindy Range, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
Case No,13399/Enquiry/2009
Tmt. S. Vijayalakshmi,
Advocate,
2/1, First Main Road, Ashok Avenue,
Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
(S. MOHANA DHAS)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR