RTI Corner

A complaint dated 17.12.2024 for non-compliance of CIC’s order dated 22.07.2024 was heard by the CIC. In the order dated 22.07.2024, the CIC had admonished the casual conduct of Mr. RP Yadav, Supt.-cum PIO, Social Welfare (South), GNCTD, Delhi and had directed to revisit the RTI Application and provide a revised reply. The CIC noted that there is a substantial delay in compliance with the order and the respondent failed to explain the reasons for the delay. The CIC referred to the criteria for processing or sanctioning of the application, under the Financial Assistance to Persons with Special Needs (popularly known as Disability Pension). The CIC noted that Ms. Madhu (Appellant’s niece) is a physically challenged person; an orphan; a member of scheduled caste; a girl child; unmarried who cannot carry out her daily activities without assistance; and has no independent means of livelihood. The CIC observed that “The extraordinary circumstances and adverse conditions faced by Ms. Madhu establish her as the weakest of the weak and poorest of the poor, being the most deprived citizen whose case deserved extra sensitivity, and it certainly could not have been dealt with in an ordinary manner by the respondent public authority in the department of Social Welfare. The appellant, being her aunt, is the only support Ms. Madhu has”. For the loss, harassment and detriment suffered by her, the Department of Social Welfare was directed by the CIC to pay a compensation of Rs. 92,000/- to the appellant within a week.
Comments
In this case, the application for compensation of Disability Pension to Ms. Madhu was forwarded to the Deputy Director (FAS), New Delhi and was pending on the date of hearing. The case was dealt with in a very casual and insensitive manner as per the CIC and the action was condemned. The CIC observed in the order that the insensitivity as established based on the records is appalling to put it most euphemistically.
Citation: Ms. Devki v. Supdt. (South), Department of Social Welfare, New Delhi, CIC/DSWGD/A/2023/119725; Order dated 14.01.2025
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
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 information about installation of Digital Programmable Water Fountain with RGB Lights and other related information. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that the PWD has not informed the amount of photocopy charges which is to be deposited to obtain the information. The CIC observed that it is a serious lacuna on the part of the Respondent in giving incomplete information to the Appellant. Not informing the exact amount of photocopy charges and the process for depositing the same amounts to obstruction of information on the part of the Respondent under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PWD to be cautious in future and ensure that such lapses do not recur. The CIC further noted that the first appeal of the Appellant was duly received in the office of the Public Authority and directed the Respondent to be careful and sure while making any submissions before the CIC. The CIC directed to inform the exact number of pages which is to be given under the RTI Act along with total amount and mode by which the same is to be deposited by the Appellant. The Respondent was directed to provide information to the Appellant within a week from the date of receipt of payment. The FAA was further directed to ensure compliance of the order.
Comments
The PIO must be cautious and inform the applicant about the quantum of fee to be paid along with the details of calculation how the amount has been arrived at. In this case, the CIC could have taken resort to Section 7(6) of the RTI Act to order providing the information free of cost to the applicant due to the delay. Section 7(6) reads, ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits.
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
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 cut-off for Environmental Sciences in the context of certain selection. The PIO denied the information claiming that it is spread over many files and not specific too. Providing such information will require huge effort in creation/compliance and therefore, it is not possible to provide the information. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that NTA is a relatively new body and the delay in replying to the RTI Application is also attributable to the time taken in setting up the RTI mechanism. The CIC observed that the PIO has tendered a baffling submission about the RTI machinery being still under process in NTA even in the year 2023. The NTA formed in the year 2017 cannot as a public authority under the RTI Act claim that it entailed over 5 years for the implementation of the RTI Act in NTA. The CIC directed that a copy of this order be marked to the Director General, NTA to take note of the adverse observations in this regard. The Director General, NTA was directed to take necessary corrective action to ensure that the PIOs and FAAs are instructed strictly to adhere to time stipulations prescribed under the RTI Act and at no point in time will the post of PIO or FAA be left vacant. The PIO was directed to revisit and provide a proper reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available cut-of marks or categorically state the unavailability thereof free of cost. The PIO was strictly warned to ensure in future that any document that is placed on the record of the CIC should be accompanied with a proper covering letter as the CIC cannot be expected to decipher the relevancy of the documents sought to be relied upon by the PIO without any reference or explanation.
Comments
If a public authority has pending RTI Applications and First Appeal(s) without a mechanism to deal with them, it would be a mockery of the statutory right to information enshrined upon the citizens. All pubic authorities must take steps as required under the RTI Act to ensure such strictures are not passed against it.
Citation: Avik Paul v. National Testing Agency, Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/625942; Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
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