RTI Corner

The records pertaining to appointment of persons on compassionate grounds and related information was denied by CISF u/s 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the queries raised by the Appellant constitute personal information related to officials who are third parties. Hence, disclosure of information with respect to such queries would be barred even under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Referring to the High Court decision in Director General and Anr. v. Harender, the CIC held that the expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend to all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters.
Comments
In most cases, the judicial pronouncements have been in favour of denying information relating to service matters in case of organisations beyond the purview of the RTI Act taking a strict interpretation of what constitutes human rights. It has been argued that if employees of an establishment cannot agitate their grievances before judicial forums, these organizations/establishments may become autocratic. In a judgment dated 22.03.2022, a division bench of Delhi High Court in UoI v. CIC, [LPA 734/2018] observed that the RTI Act is a tool which facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically. Holding that non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same, the RTI applicant would not be able to agitate her right to promotion, the Court directed to provide copies of the seniority list as well the minutes of DPC.
Citation: Shri Ashwani Verma v. CISF, Second Appeal No. CIC/CISFO/A/2021/156819, Date of Decision: 20.01.2023
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

The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application seeking information about the EPF has not been registered for want of appropriate Indian Postal Order (IPO). As the postal order was not drawn on the local postal office, it could not be encashed and hence, the PIO returned the application for the want of requisite fee. The initial IPO was returned and the Appellant was informed regarding the correct mode of payment but the Appellant did not adhere to the same. The CIC observed that the instant RTI Application has not been registered till date for want of mandatory fee through the appropriate mode of payment. Hence, the CIC considered the Second Appeal as ‘infructuous’.
Comments
The IPO should be drawn in the favour of the Accounts Officer of the public authority. If the name of the Office is not known, the name of the city may be mentioned on the IPO while stating the number of the IPO on the RTI application.
Citation: Rukmani Panigrahi v. Food Corporation of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/FCIND/A/2021/153974, Date: 20.01.2023
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

The appellant submitted before the CIC that the denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not correct as the third party against whom he had sought information had submitted fake documents, altering his date of birth to get recruited into the Army. He argued that the matter is of public interest and the information should be provided to him. The PIO informed that there is no documentary evidence regarding manipulation of date of birth in civil education certificate in respect of said individuals. The CIC observed that all the notings/ correspondence which took place while processing of the said complaint becomes personal information of that third party and except for the final outcome of the complaint, no other information can be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO was right in denying the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that the appellant had already filed an FIR which will take separate cognizance of the accusation if the accused is found guilty.
Comments
This case shows that mere allegation is not enough to invoked the clause of public interest. It has to be backed by evidence if the desires that the personal information be disclosed. Similarly, it has the contention in many cases that the file-notings should be disclosed if the person has been found guilty or otherwise.
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

The appellant had sent several applications before the Supreme Court and submitted that the same were considered/ treated as PIL applications and were uploaded on the website of Supreme Court (Grievance Management Column). He sought certified copies of entire records of the PILs filed by him in 2019. The Registrar informed that six petitions were received and diarised in the PIL section of the registry whose status may be looked at the Supreme Court website. He further informed that except 38511/2019, all the other letter petitions have been weeded out and provided the noting in respect of the one petition. The Appellant submitted that while he had filed only one application on 13.07.2019, status report of the Grievance Management column on the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications. The CIC observed that the reason behind the six applications has been narrated by the Appellant himself in his First Appeal stating that the six separate applications arose out of the same application being transferred from various public authorities viz. Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Law and Justice etc. So, the question raised by the Appellant about the multiplication of the application dated 13.07.2019 has been answered by him in his own First Appeal. It is also noteworthy that multiplication of the application is not the question raised by him in the RTI application. The CIC held that the query raised by the Appellant seeking certified copies of records relating to certain specific PIL cases have been satisfactorily answered by the public authority by providing information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. There is no legal infirmity in the response sent by the public authority, which requires any further adjudication, under the RTI Act.
Comments
The issue which has been overshadowed in the discussions is the fact that for only one application filed, the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications with no outcome.
Citation: Shri Indrajit Biswas v. Supreme Court of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2021/141525; Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
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

The appellant prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal of one year may be condoned as the same was caused due to Covid pandemic in the country. The CIC observed that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The reason cited by the appellant cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second as the period from September 2020 to March 2021, the peak time of Covid-19, was already over and all the offices were functioning with basic staff. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the appellant has failed to give a sufficient justified cause explaining delay in preferring the second appeal, hence, the appeal is considered as time barred under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly, dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
Comments
Section 19(3) of the RTI Act provides a time limit of 90 days to file an appeal before the Information Commission and an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period if the Information Commission is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
Citation: Bakulkumar Vaghela v. Directorate General Defence Estate, File no.: CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/142789, Date of Decision: 17.11.2022
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