RTI Corner

The appellant sought information regarding enrolment of an Advocate in the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. The information was denied on the plea of being exempted under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The CIC observed that the public has a right to know as to whether a person who claims to be an advocate is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council or not. Hence, larger public interest mandates the disclosure of the information sought for.
Comments
The “public interest” override clause of the RTI Act allows for disclosure of information which is otherwise exempt from disclosure.
Citation: Mahender Pal v. CPIO, Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOI/A/2018/104444, Date 23.10.2017
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant had filed a complaint vide letter dated 09.06.2017 addressed to Hon’ble HRD Minister and sought an action taken report in regard to above said letter under RTI Act. The PIO, MHRD submitted that the said complaint dated 09.06.2017 was forwarded to UGC vide letter no. F.No.5-4/2017-U.II dated 30.06.2017 and the appellant was informed accordingly on 10.01.2018. The PIO, UGC submitted that an appropriate reply was given vide letter dated 09.02.2018 stating that the said complaint dated 09.06.2017 was not received by them. The appellant submitted that he did not receive any relevant information from the PIO. The CIC observed that both the PIOs, UGC and MHRD, have handled the RTI application very poorly. Both the PIOs are required to provide information as per the availability of record. Hence, the CPIO MHRD should provide complete notings in respect of the processing of the complaint dated 09.06.2017. Moreover, the CPIO UGC should also re- examine the records and provide the present status of the complaint dated 09.06.2017. In case no action was taken a categorical reply should be provided.
Comments
If an appellant seeks the action taken report under the RTI Act in respect of the complaint filed by him, the same should be provided in the form of file notings or correspondence made. The inspection of the respective file should be provided rather than sleeping over the letter.
Citation: Sanjay Sharma v. CPIO, Ministry of Human Resource Development and CPIO, University Grants Commission (UGC) in Decision no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/119376/01617, Date of Decision: 13/09/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India