RTI Corner

RTI Applications were filed seeking information in matters related to inquiry conducted relating to the death of an officer (I.C. No.81948P Captain Abhishek Mishra) by the father of the said deceased officer in Border Roads Task Force (BRTF). The appellant apprehended foul play and alleged corruption charge in the matter of death of his son. The CIC observed that the information sought concerns the death of an employee while in service, which directly attracts the human rights exception and in this matter, the appellant is not a stranger but the father of the deceased.
Comments
The appellant had lost his young son who was an army officer and was making efforts in pursuit of justice for his deceased son. The CIC has consistently held that next of kin (NOK) are entitled to inquiry records relating to death of the deceased officer in an organisation, which otherwise is exempted under 2nd schedule of RTI Act and in the instant matter as well, the Commission would reiterate that even the organisations listed in the Second Schedule are bound to disclose such information.
Citation: Santosh Kumar Mishra v. Ministry of Defence HQ 50 BRTF, File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/119747 with CIC/IARMY/A/2024/117327; Date of Decision: 23.01.2026
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant who has worked for organisations such as IIM Indore, IIM Mumbai, IIM Visakhapatnam and ICAI. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article has been published on this website since 2008. Other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought a copy of the Transfer application and the correspondence in respect of Sri. S.Ramesh Sunkasari Programme Executive AIR Hyderabad and also the order copy of the transfer order No: 07/01/23 dt 31/05/2023 from AIR Kothagudem to AIR Hyderabad. He sought the details of the staff and leave management, work flow order at AIR kothagudem for the period from Jan-2023 to June 2023 and the name of the sanctioning authority in respect of leave of the staff during the above period. He also sought the correspondence over e-office in respect of certain computer no's along with the reasons for inordinate delay in taking up the needful action. The Appellant stated that he works in the All India Radio (AIR) and one of his colleagues misbehaved with him. He raised complaints against the same, but no action was taken by the All India Radio. The Respondent submitted that an enquiry was ordered at that time based on the e-office files sought by the appellant and hence, the same was denied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, at that time. However, the respondent submitted that the aforesaid enquiry did not take place. The CIC observed that there is no on-going enquiry and hence, exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not applicable. The CIC directed to provide to give a revised reply to the appellant incorporating the information pertaining to the appellant, after redacting third-party information under section 10 of the RTI Act like officer’s names, contact details etc.,. Also, the respondent was directed to give a revised reply about the sanctioning authority (only designation) in respect of leave of the staff. In case, no such sanctioning authority has been notified, the respondent shall state the same explicitly in their revised reply.
Comments
8(1)(h) of the RTI Act permits denial of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. If there is no enquiry, the mute question is whether it would ‘mpede’ the process of investigation.
Citation: S Ramesh Sunkasari v. All India Radio, File No: CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/121626; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant who has worked for organisations such as IIM Indore, IIM Mumbai, IIM Visakhapatnam and ICAI. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article is being published on this website since 2008. Other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the details of employees appointed under the Reserved Quota in the Assistant Grade-III cadre in the Food Corporation of India in a specific proforma. The PIO denied the information adding that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. Before the CIC, the Respondent submitted that the appellant sought information about SC/ST/OBC employees in Assistant Grade III Cadre from 2021 to 2024 along with their verified caste certificates in a tabular format given by him. The respondent submitted that there are around 6000 employees in their department and the compilation of the sought information in desired format for 24 years would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The respondent submitted that in view of the aforesaid reasons, they have denied the sought information U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the respondent additionally pleaded that the caste certificates of the employees are exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On being asked by the CIC whether the PIO confirms for placing on record his plea for exemption U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the same was not earlier mentioned in reply as per record, the PIO confirmed. The CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant. Further, the CIC observed that the respondent had pleaded additional grounds during the hearing and the same was held as appropriate.
Comments
The caste details of an employee are his personal information which are not liable for disclosure. Information can be provided in the format in which it is available and asking the data in a specified format may lead to rejection of RTI application.
Citation: Yashwant Rao Hedau v. Food Corporation of India, File No: CIC/FCIND/A/2024/640832; Date of Decision: 23-01-2026
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant who has worked for organisations such as IIM Indore, IIM Mumbai, IIM Visakhapatnam and ICAI. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article is been published on this website since 2008. Other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The respondent informed that the RTI Application was filed by Ms. Saroj Gupta and as the information was sought regarding report of auditing pertaining to grant of said 3rd MACP of Sh. Mangat Goyal, the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was counter argued by Sh. Mangat Goyal that the Appellant is his wife who had filed the RTI Application on his behalf seeking internal audit report related to him and denial of the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is wrong. The respondent further stated that the report is a 10 years old record and is not traceable in their official records. Considering the fact that Shri Mangat Goyal represented the Appellant during the hearing, the CIC ruled that the plea of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not survive. The CIC directed to examine the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised reply within four weeks. In the event, no records on such points are available in their office, the fact should be categorically reflected in the revised reply of the PIO.
Comments
It is preferable for an individual to file an application directly under the RTI Act instead of asking a friend or a relative to seek information on one’s behalf.
Citation: Saroj Gupta v. Sports Authority of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/643474; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant who has worked for organisations such as IIM Indore, IIM Mumbai, IIM Visakhapatnam and ICAI. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article has been published on this website since 2008. Other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Can repetition of an RTI application be a ground of refusal?

The Appellant sought details of income of Appellant’s estranged spouse. The Respondent stated that information has been initially denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act on receipt of objection letter from the third party under Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, a revised reply as per RTI Act giving numeric figures of income sought has already been given to the appellant. The CIC noted that after initial denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Respondent furnished a revised reply to the Appellant. During the hearing, it was also observed that similar Second Appeals of the Appellant was earlier heard and disposed of by the Commission bearing case File No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001539 dated 12.01.2017, CIC/LICOI/A/2019/162743 dated 10.08.2021 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/148347 dated 16.04.2025. The CIC has been ordering relief in cases where the applicant’s spouse alleges marital discord and seeks information i.e. gross and net taxable income of their spouse in pursuance of a case pending for maintenance and the Respondent has already shared the generic details of income of Appellant’s estranged spouse vide written submission which is in the spirit of the RTI Act. The CIC held that once an RTI application is answered, the appellants shall refrain themselves from filing another RTI application against the public authority as once information is received and held by them or posted in public domain, because such information is deemed to have ceased to be 'held' by the public authority. Repetition shall be grounds for refusal.
Comments
Seeking the details of the spouse's income is not an uncommon issue in the RTI arena. The CIC has directed for the disclosure of gross income in some cases. In this case, the CIC has spoken out strongly against repeat RTI applications directing that ‘Repetition shall be ground of refusal’ creating a new ground for rejection of information.
Citation: Archana Singh v. LIC of India, CIC/LICOI/A/2024/108893, Date of Decision: 25.08.2025

Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant currently working with the IIM Visakhapatnam. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article is being published on this website since 2008 other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought for the rank, name and marks secured by candidates for Labour Enforcement Officer separately in RT and interview and the total aggregate rank wise. On appeal, the FAA directed to furnish appropriate reply on this point. On second appeal, after the perusal of the FAA’s order, the CIC observed that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind, although the appellant had sought personal details including educational qualification of other candidates. The FAA’s order was set aside by the CIC regarding providing the educational details of candidates. It was held that personal details/ information of other candidates is held by the UPSC in a fiduciary relationship and is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2025.
Comments
Information about the educational qualification or the marks scored by the other candidates is often an issue raised in an application filed under the RTI Act. Understanding privacy and respecting the personal information is a responsibility entrusted to the PIO.
Citation: Rahul Kumar Pathak v. Union Public Service Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2024/650667; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
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 certified copies of RBI Master Direction Money Changing Activities RBI/FED/2015-16/17 FED and Master Direction No. 3/2015-16 dated 01.01.2016 (Updated as on Dec. 8, 2017) purpose) were sought by the appellant. The PIO provided URLs and asked the appellant to refer to two different web-links. The Complainant submitted that the information sought in the RTI application was not accessible from the web-links shared by the PIO. The CIC observed that adequate and accurate information has been shared with the complainant. During the course of hearing, the averred information was accessed at the hyperlink directly from RBI’s official website.
Comments
In many cases, the website of the public authority is non-functional or specific pages do not open. It would be a good practice to review and upgrade the web-site from time to time.
Citation: Binu Peter v. Reserve Bank of India, Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/125721; Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
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 appellant sought Promotional correspondence records and concerned certified copies claiming that issue stands clarified by DoPT under OM No 36012/12/2013-Estt (Res) dated 24th July 2020. The CIC noted that the Appellant sought inspection of all records and correspondence relating to his promotion and certain clarifications regarding the Rules and Procedures followed by the Respondent organization, including details concerning DoPT OMs. The PIO informed the Appellant that inspection of all relevant files had already been offered to him in the past and, pursuant to the directions of the CIC in an earlier matter, he had in fact inspected the files on 18.10.2023, whereafter certified copies were also provided to him. With respect to the remaining queries, the PIO clarified that the information sought was vague and appeared to require interpretation or clarification of rules, which does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that several of the queries raised in the RTI application seek interpretation of Rules and reasons for administrative decisions, which is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act. The CIC further noted that the Appellant has remained absent during the hearing and has continued to file repetitive RTI applications relating to his service grievance, which cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC also noted that the promotional issue underlying these RTI applications now stands resolved as the Appellant has already been promoted and has assumed charge.
Comments
The RTI Act defines “information” under Section 2(f) and the seeking clarification is not covered under the provisions of the Act. However, with ingenuity, the RTI Act can be used to nudge the public authority to perform certain actions.
Citation:C M Nimje v. Central Water and Power Research Station; File No: CIC/CWPRS/A/2024/625204; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
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 appellant sought the details of employees appointed under the Reserved Quota in the Assistant Grade-III cadre in the Food Corporation of India in a specific proforma. The PIO replied that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and denied the information. Before the CIC, the Respondent submitted that the appellant sought information about SC/ST/OBC employees in Assistant Grade III Cadre from 2021 to 2024 along with their verified caste certificates in a tabular format given by him. The respondent submitted that there are around 6000 employees in their department and the compilation of the sought information in desired format would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence, the aforesaid information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the respondent additionally pleaded that the caste certificates of the employees are exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On query by CIC whether the respondent confirms for placing on record his plea for exemption U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the same was not earlier mentioned in reply of the CPIO, the respondent confirmed. The CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant. The CIC held that the respondent has pleaded additional grounds that the sought information is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act during the hearing, and the same is also found to be appropriate. The CIC rejected the appeal.
Comments
Additional grounds which were not considered earlier can be asserted during the hearing before the CIC. Even the grounds for rejection of the information can be changed withdrawing the earlier clause and replacing it by a new one.
Citation:Yashwant Rao Hedau v. Food Corporation of India, File No: CIC/FCIND/A/2024/640832; Date of Decision: 23.01.2026
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 appellant sought the date of the receipt of a particular Comprehensive Report and the action taken on it, specifically if any orders were passed based on the Comprehensive Report. The appellant also sought to the specific sections under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or under Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957, under which the copies of the Minutes of Meeting nominating the list of Office Bearers as "Protected workman" for the year, 2023-24, were sought form the Union. The CIC observed that the PIO has furnished adequate and appropriate replies within the framework of the RTI Act and upon the direction of the FAA, additional information was furnished. The CIC noted that an identical issue was disposed by the Bench in File No. CIC/UTPON/C/2023/145647 on 23.03.2024. The CIC held that there is no ground to re-adjudicate a matter that has already been duly decided and where all available information has already been furnished to the Appellant.
Comments
The CIC does not have the power to review its own order. It would be wastage of the time of the CIC to reach out with the same matter repeatedly as it may not yield any different result.
Citation: K Lakshminarayanan v. Labour Commissioner, File No: CIC/ARWNG/A/2024/119756/CSRTI; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
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

A member of the Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi sought information regarding financial irregularities in the Society's accounts. The CIC reminded the Complainant that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment.
Comments
Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase that means "hear the other side" and refers to the legal principle that no person should be judged or have a decision made against them without a fair hearing. It has been seen that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority tries proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply to the Appellants before the date of hearing. The result is a faster delivery of information, reducing the time, energy and efforts of the CIC in an early disposal. Thus, it is the interest of the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
Citation: Subhash Chander Banga v. Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/612685; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
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 appellant sought certified copies of registration documents pertaining to Dev Prabhat Samachar Hindi newspaper. His application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to Office of Press Registrar General of India. The respondent claimed that information was denied U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 04.07.2024. The CIC enquired about the mode by which the reply dated 04.07.2024 was sent to the complainant. The respondent submitted that the reply was uploaded on website but could not corroborate their submission. The respondent could not confirm whether they had sent the letter dated 04.07.2024 to the complainant by post within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the then PIO Mr. Suresh Kumar, as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him for not providing reply to the complainant within stipulated time limit.
Comments
Every PIO must reply to the RTI Application as per the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act, and keep the proof of reply.
Citation: Shravan Mishra v. Office of the Press Registrar General of India, File No: CIC/MOIAB/C/2024/127395; Date of Interim Decision: 23-01-2026