Seeking unspecific and humungous information
The appellant sought detailed information about depreciation on import transactions, losses suffered, interest levied on buyers, insurance claim rejected, unsecured receivables, ratings, non-predetermined sales, FIR, Audit etc. The Advocates for the Respondents strongly condemned all the contentions of the Appellant contained in the Second Appeal and explained the replies provided to each point of the instant RTI Application. The CIC observed that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. The CIC held that it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the PIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. The CIC dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Rules are explicit that the word limit of 500 cannot be used to deny information to an applicant. The PIO should attempt to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and invoke relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act, if applicable.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. PEC Limited, CIC/PECLT/A/2022/624382; 27.04.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com
Comments
The RTI Rules are explicit that the word limit of 500 cannot be used to deny information to an applicant. The PIO should attempt to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and invoke relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act, if applicable.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. PEC Limited, CIC/PECLT/A/2022/624382; 27.04.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com