RTI Corner

The appellant sought the name and designation of the competent authority for whose approval draft guidelines for the wood based industry were submitted; copy of modified draft guidelines submitted to the competent authority etc.. Before the CIC, the respondent submitted that at the time of the receipt of the appellant’s RTI application, the draft guidelines were under consideration and had been sent to the Minister for approval and therefore, no reply could have been sent to the appellant. However, approved guidelines were received in the section on 23.9.2016 and reply was given to the appellant’s RTI application. The CIC observed that the appellant’s RTI application was dated 20.7.2016 and response was given to the appellant by the CPIO on 26.9.2016, i.e. only after the appellant had approached the Commission in second appeal on 19.9.2016. The CIC advised the PIO for the future to give an interim response to the applicant in case the information is not readily available or awaited from any authority concerned, at the time of the receipt of the RTI application.
Comments
In many cases the information is not available with the PIO or may require some time for obtaining from a third party. In such cases, it is always advisable to keep the applicant informed about the steps being taken to provide the information.
Citation: Shri Udhaya Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change in Appeal No. CIC/MOENF/A/2017/175812/MP, Date of Decision: September 29, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of 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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information about non-crediting of PF Employers share in account slips of 2013-14 etc. in applicant’s account was sought. The CIC held that the RTI request is concerned with ‘life and liberty’ and should have responded by EPFO within 48 hours. The CIC observed that if the phone/mobile or whatsapp, or email id is available, the EPFO shall use them to contact the applicant and to communicate the response. The CIC held that the EPFO is required to incorporate a system according to which the moment RTI application on pension issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify if it is a pension related grievance and then should start acting immediately. A show was issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub-Regional Office, Ganjam to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the information within prescribed timelines. The officer submitted an explanation and informed that a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- will be credited into the account of the appellant within a week. The CIC found the explanation satisfactory and dropped the Penalty proceedings.
Comments
The view of the CIC that a grievance related to pension (delay in response, delay in fixation and delay in payment) should be treated as ‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the public authorities shall do all the needful to address the issue within 48 hours extends the scope of life and liberty. The CIC has suggested the quick mode of communication while holding that if the phone/mobile / whatsapp, or email id is available, the respondent shall use them to contact the applicant and to communicate the response..
Citation: Manoranjan Patra v. EPFO, Ganjam, Odisha in CIC/BS/A/2016/000523 Decided on: 15.09.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of 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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Appellant stated that he wanted to know the reasons behind the blast that occurred in INS Sindurakshak (S 63) Submarine as he inferred from media reports that the cause for the blast was attributed to some human error. The PIO submitted that the information was denied under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon Commission’s instance, the PIO elaborated that the Board of Inquiry is a vast elaboration of the events which runs into almost 16 Volumes and entails description of the specifications of the Submarine; details of its deployment, where it was headed, why it was deployed and will even have sensitive details like missile fitting specifications. Disclosure of these details will be prejudicial to national security as similar class of submarines exist in present day which are used for deployment and if specifications are revealed, it will not be conducive to the strategic interest of the State. In the interim decision on 30.08.2017, the CIC directed the PIO to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the in-camera hearing. The PIO produced 16 volumes of relevant Board of Inquiry (BOI) report before the CIC. After perusing the relevant extract pertaining to findings of the Inquiry leading to mishap in INS Sindhurakshak , the CIC directed the PIO to provide to the Appellant, the extract of para 85(a) of page 46 of Volume XIII of 4 BOI, after suitably blacking out technical details.
Comments
Section 18 of the RTI Act grants the power to the CIC to requisition any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. In case of documents which are of confidential nature, the Commission has asked for the files to inspect such documents in terms of the suitability of disclosure.
Citation: Rahul Sehrawat v. Integrated HQ MoD(Navy) in File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2017/110171/SD, Date of Final Decision:06/10/2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of 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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought certified copies of TA claims, Professional Development Allowance (PDA) etc. filed by certain officials. The respondents stated that on points 1 to 4, 51 pages and on points 5 to 6, 88 pages of information had been provided to the appellant free of cost. The Commission observed that the PIO had provided voluminous information free of cost to the appellant including copies of TA/DA bills pertaining to third party. The Commission cautioned the PIO to be careful in future and not to divulge information to RTI applicants without invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
There is a protection provided in the RTI Act to the PIO for the action done in good faith. Whenever a PIO intends to disclose any information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO is expected to give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the information. The third party should be invited to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party should be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.
Citation: Shri Sarbjit Singh v. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology (SLIET) in Case No. CIC/SLIET/A/2017/186226/MP, Date of Decision: 29th September, 2017.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of 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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/