Is Hockey India Fearing Exposure Of Some Scandal? CIC Show Cause Notice To HI’s Ex-President Rajinder Gill [Read Order]

Stressing that sport of hockey cannot be used as base for commercial profit generating by Hockey India (HI) and Hockey India League (HIL), the Central Information Commission has issued show cause notice to Hockey India’s former president Rajinder Singh asking him why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him and HI’s CPIO and the first appellate authority for not disclosing details of its sponsors, commission paid on sponsorship and fee paid to lawyers.CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu held Rajinder Singh responsible for non-compliance of the commission’s order in the matter and obstructing its statutory function by submitting photocopies of relevant documents with important details painted black despite the undertaking of HI’s counsel to submit the original documents in a sealed cover.The CIC said, “In ordinary course, the Commission has to direct the CPIO Ranjit Gill to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him. But Hockey India being such a rich and huge powerful public authority, it is not possible for these small offices to act independently” and went on to “hold Rajinder Singh (who is now Secretary-General) of the Hockey India responsible for this act of non-compliance and directs them to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against them”.The CIC was hearing second appeal moved by BJP leader Kirti Azad who had filed an RTI application in the year 2015 seeking details about HIL certificate of registration, sponsorship amount received by HIL in the last 2 years, amount of commission paid for getting sponsorships, details of total expenditure incurred by HI and HIL in the past 2 years, besides the expenditure incurred on consultancy and legal expenses with name of each consultants and lawyers engaged by HI and HIL in the last 2 years.He also sought to know about the expenditure incurred on TA/DA of board members in the last 2 years and the names of permanent/life members of HI and HIL.The CPIO directed Azad to the website of HI saying the information sought is already in public domain while maintaining throughout that HIL is organized under the aegis of the Hockey India and is not a separate body per se.Dissatisfied, he moved the first appeal to which the appellate authority reiterated commercial confidence as a bar on disclosure of commission paid to get sponsorship and fee paid to lawyers etc. It also maintained that the list of sponsors is already on the website.Azad then moved the CIC which directed respondent to disclose the information sought.HI then moved the Delhi High Court which remanded the matter back to the CIC for fresh consideration.Before the commission, HI’s counsel Shyel Trehan argued that the information about sponsors, commission paid etc., could not be given to secure the interest mentioned in Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.She also argued that there was no public interest but a private interest behind RTI application to target a senior cabinet minister and other HI office-bearers.On HI questioning Azad’s motive behind the RTI application, the CIC held, “It is the burden of the CPIO or Public Authority under Section 19(5) of RTI Act to prove or justify the invocation of any exception to deny the information. They also have a duty to disclose, if there is any larger public interest. Motives of applicant behind filing RTI applications with HI are irrelevant. Even the competitor to HI, if any, has aright to information under RTI Act. The CPIO, First Appellate Authority and Information Commissions have to examine whether information sought was hit by any exception, or any proviso to exception permits disclosure, or comparative public interest mentioned in 8(2) allows disclosure and then decide.”On HI equating HIL with Indian Premier League (IPL) of BCCI to oppose certain disclosures, the CIC noted that BCCI has disclosed the details concerning existing and previous official sponsors along with the amount enlarged.“The above comparison shows that like IPL, the HIL also should have been transparent. The above claim of learned counsel for respondents binds HIL and HIto be more transparent. Strangely, the BCCI and IPL are fighting tooth and nail either not to come under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005 or to deny information without justification. The BCCI is disclosing on their own some information, which the HIL is denying though they are not contending that RTI will not apply to them. Thus, even if the contention of learned counsel for respondent that HIL is on par with IPL is accepted, the HIL and HI have to answer the points sought by the appellant,” said the commission.Sponsorship amount painted blackThe commission noted during the hearing that HI was trying to present a picture that HIL is totally not connected with the HI and thus HI cannot be made obligated to disclose information about HIL.HI’s counsel submitted certain documents in sealed cover which revealed that HIL is entering into contracts on behalf of HI and...

Is Hockey India Fearing Exposure Of Some Scandal? CIC Show Cause Notice To HI’s Ex-President Rajinder Gill [Read Order]

akanksha jain

Tags