Gole Market jhuggi demolition: NDMC cites police shortage, MCC for inaction; CIC raps 'vague' reply

The Central Information Commission CIC has pulled up the New Delhi Municipal Council NDMC for a vague and non-specific RTI reply on demolition and alleged reconstruction of shanties near Gole Market, whereas the civic body had cited unavailability of police force and later, the Model Code of Conduct MCC for not carrying out further action.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) for a ''vague and non-specific'' RTI reply on demolition and alleged reconstruction of shanties near Gole Market, whereas the civic body had cited unavailability of police force and later, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for not carrying out further action. The appellant had sought details on whether around 45 ''jhuggis'' (shanties) were demolished in March 2022 and how nearly 100 structures allegedly came up at the same site again, along with information on action taken by authorities. However, the NDMC's central public information officer (CPIO) denied answering most queries, citing section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. On the issue of reconstructed jhuggis, the NDMC had said demolition action was planned but ''due to unavailability of police force, proposed action for removal of reconstructed jhuggies has not been executed. Thereafter, due to enforcement of Model Code of Conduct, demolition action has been kept in abeyance''. Taking exception, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari noted that ''the CPIO has denied information on point Nos. 1 to 3 by invoking section 2(f) of the RTI Act in a mechanical manner, without adequately examining whether the information sought is available on record''. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, defines ''information'' as any material in any form-records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, contracts, reports, samples or data held by or under the control of a public authority. Tiwari further stressed that the queries were related to ''action taken by the public authority which should have been provided to the extent available on record''. ''The Respondent ought to have provided a clear, categorical and record-based point-wise reply instead of giving a vague and non-specific response,'' the order said, adding that even the response on the reconstruction issue lacked clarity and completeness. Directing corrective steps, the CIC ordered the NDMC to issue a ''revised, point-wise and specific reply'' based on available records. It specifically instructed that on the demolition aspect, the authority must disclose ''the factual position based on records, including providing the file/firm number, relevant orders, or any documentary evidence pertaining to demolition action, if available''. The commission also mandated that if any information is unavailable, ''the same shall be clearly stated''.