RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on about the itinerary of PM Narendra Modi during a few days of February, 2019 and the details of his meeting with Bear Grylls, a renowned survival expert. Vide interim reply, the PIO at PMO intimated that the matter is being processed by the office and information will be sent as soon as possible. The FAA directed the PIO to expedite furnishing the response within 25 working days. Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the CIC. The CIC observed that an appropriate response in compliance with the FAA’s order has been provided to the Appellant, albeit a slight delay for which the PIO, PMO was cautioned.
Comments
Every PIO must ensure a timely reply to an application filed under the RTI Act failing which the CIC may pass a stricture or impose penalty.
Citation: Shri Goutham Ganesh M H v. PMO in Second Appeal No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/656741, Date of Decision: 31.12.2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The total number of requests received under Section 69 and Rules there under from various agencies between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2016. The PIO informed that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. Further, the records pertaining to lawful interception are destroyed as per provisions contained in Sub-Rule 18 of the Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The Respondent added that statistics of requests may be available with the Department of Telecom as the Review Committee under Rule 22 of the IT (Procedure and safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 is dealt by this department. Hence the RTI application had been transferred to the actual custodian of information, viz. the Department of Telecom. The CIC found no reason to intervene in the matter.
Comments
In terms of the Sub-Rule 18 of the Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, records pertaining to directions for interception and of intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months. When the records have been destroyed as per the provisions of law, copies of the same cannot be provided.
Citation: Shri Avdhesh Kumar v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/ISDIV/A/2019/640226, Date of Decision: 01.11.2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Complaint against alleged illegal postings of officials of VPT and alleged illegal activities of certain officials was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI with the remark that the matter was under investigation before the Vigilance Department. On second appeal, the CIC held that the denial of information by the PIO with the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act was not appropriate rather he should have denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act..
Comments
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010) explained the term “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied..
Citation: R Deepak v. Ministry of Shipping in Files No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118056+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118050+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118058+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118059+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118060, Date of Decision: 23/12/2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The CPIO), M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, denied the information sought in the RTI Application by stating that “the information sought is not available with this CPIO.” Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the CIC requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Before the CIC, the CPIO Shri Rajeev Ranjan submitted that since the information sought was not available with their office, accordingly the same has been informed to the complainant. Therefore, in his opinion this was the only reply which should have been given to the complainant. The CIC observed that the CPIO is not required to give his own judgments on the issue but he should have specifically/point-wise denied it that the information sought is not available as per their records or should have sought the assistance of the concerned CPIO/department under section 5(4) of the Act in order to give specific reply. Terming any information unnecessary is not warranted. The Commission took a serious note of this fact and held that the conduct of the then CPIO is highly objectionable. A show-cause notice was issued to the CPIO why penalty should not be imposed for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) held that it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. CPIO M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665367, Date of Order: 01-11-2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com