RTI Corner

A copy of the report of the expert committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma to carry out technical review of 66 pesticides was not provided to the appellant although the reply appeared to be directing him to the website where the report was to be available. During the hearing the PIO, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage submitted that the report was not under their custody as it is available with the Ministry and also submitted that some matter in relation to the report is sub-judice before a court of law. The CIC observed that even if this submission is accepted, the PIO could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information which was not done. The appellant objected that if the report is sub-judice, this means some third person has the report and it has gone public and hence it cannot be denied to him. The CIC accepted the submission of the appellant and directed the PIO, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare to provide the information in the form of a copy of the report as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A case being sub-judice, by itself, cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Citation: Siddharth Joshi v. Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee in Decision no.: -CIC/DPPQS/A/2018/626961/02518, Date of Decision : 02/01/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The PIO informed that the copy of Charge Memo and other documents connected with the relevant departmental proceedings were provided to the Appellant during the hearing of departmental proceedings, hence not provided in response to the instant RTI Application. The CIC observed that the PIO has erred in denying the information sought citing the matter as sub-judice. The CIC expressed displeasure over the conduct of PIO in citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for denying the information sought. The PIO was directed to provide copy of Charge Memo and other documents connected with the relevant departmental proceedings sought in the RTI Application.
Comments
There is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 which allows denial of information on the grounds of the matter being sub-judice. Further, if copies of certain documents are being sought under the RTI Act, they cannot be denied claiming that copies were already provided under some other proceedings.
Citation: Musabbar v. CPIO, Remount Training School Depot, CPIO, Remount Training School Depot in File No.: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/143104, Date of Decision: 02/01/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com.

The appellant sent a letter to the CBSE seeking correction of name in CBSE certificate and subsequently sought an action taken report under RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the correction of his name in the CBSE certificate was done by the respondent authority though delayed by over a year and a half. The PIO submitted that the grievance of the appellant was redressed properly. The CIC observed that since the grievance of the appellant was redressed and the appellant is satisfied with the same, there is no scope for intervention in the matter. However, the PIO should note that the reply/information must be supplied within the time limit as laid down in the RTI Act. Interim replies have to be followed up with final relies as soon as possible, without the appellant needing to send any reminder in this regard.
Comments
There has been an increase in the use of RTI Applications seeking an action taken report on a complaint or a request for a particular action. In a large number of applications, filing of RTI Application has led to a positive outcome for the applicant.
Citation: Shyad Hafijur Rahman v. CPIO, Central Board of Secondary Education in Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/141146/02268, Date of Decision: 05/12/2019
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com