Whispers Forum

The applicant sought for information from Bank of Baroda about freezing of his Saving account and related information. The PIO denied the information claiming it as exempt from disclosure under section 24 of the Right to Information Act and harped on the exempt status of Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Gujarat as per relevant notification during personal hearing before the CIC. The CIC took grave exception to the absurd and grossly misleading reply and observed that the Bank of Baroda has cited Section 24 of the RTI Act as though it is an exempted organization and the same is unacceptable and is considered as a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act without any reasonable cause. A notice was issued to the then PIO why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing a grossly wrong and misleading reply. The CIC further observed that since the RTI queries specifically sought for information related to freezing of his bank account, which is very much the domain of the bank in terms of being the concerned record holder and not CBI and even if the record holder was solely CBI, then there should have been a transfer of the RTI Application as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. There is nothing contained in the RTI Act that empowers the PIO of the Respondent bank to claim exemption on behalf of CBI and even if that were the case, the PIO did not even bother to specify the same in his reply. A notice was also issued to the PIO to explain as to why the reply of the then PIO was being mindlessly endorsed even at this stage, impliedly sharing the onus of having provided the wrong & misleading reply. The CIC directed the PIO to now provide a revised point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application.
Comments
It is a classic case which indicates ignorance of the PIO about the provisions of the RTI Act. All readers are strongly advised to read these case laws to learn about the common mistakes which may render them liable for penalty.
Citation: Nilesh R Gupta v. Bank of Baroda, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/620207; Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The conspiracy of the gangs of traitors and deep state operators to target India, especially the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, by engineering the Pahalgam incident has proved rather too costly for them. They have destroyed Donald Trump and hurt American interests for the rest of his term as POTUS. They have harmed Xi Jinping irreparably. They have ruined Erdogan terribly which they had not imagined. The sheer scale of damage to these people and interests of their countries is so much that they will take months to assess. It has benefited India as the people have seen the reality of foreign powers whose policy is that “War Is Trade”. Only Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s graph has risen further.
M L Gupta

The appellant sought for the certified true copy of the rules and guidelines governing the matters connected to the compassionate appointment in the MES. The appellant asked for the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered a "dependent" of the deceased employee of the MES. Further, the appellant sought to know if "multiple dependents" of the deceased employee of the MES are eligible for the compassionate appointment, how is the "priority” created for them? He sought for the priority list in "chronological order.” The CIC observed that no reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application which shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the CIC’s notice of hearing by not appearing before it.
Comments
The guidelines regarding deciding the order of preference of taking up cases of multiple dependents should be made available on the website of the organization.
Citation: Marge Lombi v. Military Engineer Services, CIC/MESER/A/2024/600673; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com