RTI Corner

The appellant has sought information regarding license issued for poppy cultivation to an individual and other related queries. The PIO informed the appellant that the information sought being 32 years old is not available. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal and the FAA upheld the PIO’s reply. The respondent submitted that the information sought being too old cannot be traceable. The CIC directed the respondent to make all possible efforts to search the relevant information and provide the same to the appellant. In an alternative, an appropriate affidavit enumerating the factum that the information sought is not in the custody of the public authority should be provided to the appellant.
Comments
It is seen that old records are not traceable with many public authorities and nobody is held responsible for the loss of documents. Many public authorities are not undertaking destruction of records on regular basis which they are required to undertake.
Citation: Mr. Lal Singh V. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Second Appeal No.CIC/DOREV/A/2020/108647, Date: 12.10.2021
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 appellant sought information related to the payment of pension to Members of Parliament after the completion of their term and other related queries. The appellant agreed that the relevant information has been provided by the respondent, however the reply provided is not officially signed, therefore, it is not authentic. The respondent had provided a reply through RTI online portal which is a system generated reply and same does not require authenticity. Although the public authority has no control over the format in which the information received by the appellant through RTI online portal, but the CIC held that if in case the relevant information as provided through RTI online portal is not dispatched yet, the same should be provided in hard copy as well. The CIC directed to provide the relevant information to the appellant in hard copy also as exits on record, duly attested and authenticated by the public authority.
Comments
Whether copies of documents available on the website should be provided and whether the same should be authenticated has been often raised. In this case, the CIC has directed in favour of providing the authenticated copies of records.
Citation: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Bhilyabhai Patidar V. Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat IN Second Appeal No.CIC/PAROI/A/2020/108452, Date: 12.10.202
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 Appellant filed an online RTI application seeking the information about the names of sponsored students and their sponsoring organisations who completed their M.Tech from Department of Computer Science and Engineering of IIT Kharagpur during 1983 - 2019. Part of the information was provided while it was informed that the remaining data is not available. The CIC observed that it is personal information of third parties and ignoring this aspect the CPIO has erred in giving the details of said students through his first reply without seeking consent of such students under Section 11 of RTI Act. The CPIO was advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as per the RTI Act while divulging the third party’s personal information to the applicants.
Comments
An overenthusiastic (ignorant?) PIO may not follow the procedure and disclose personal information of third party. Such an act may lead to loss or detriment to the third party for which a compensation may be claimed. It calls for regular training of the PIO and FAA as such mistakes are being done by a large number of officers.
Citation: Har Sukhdeep Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur in File No: CIC/IITKH/A/2020/106698; Date of Decision: 21/09/2021
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

Certified copies of all noting, all inquiry reports, and all first and second stage advice in respect of appellant’s various complaints registered by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under PIDPI Resolution were sought. The PIO replied that the information sought cannot be provided as per PIDPI Resolution dated 21.04.2004. The Appellant submitted that he is being denied information under the garb of PIDPI resolution even though he had categorically mentioned that he has no objection to the disclosure of his identity. Further, all of the complaints referred to by him are related to corruption and disclosure of information is invariably in the larger public interest. The appellant submitted that in similar cases, the Hon’ble CIC have granted relief vide orders no. CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/173997 Date of Decision 11.01.2021 & CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/174234 Date of Decision 11.01.2021. The PIO submitted that it is the constant endeavour of CVC to protect the interests of the whistle-blowers whether it is a PIDPI or non PIDPI complaint. He informed that CVC has challenged the decision of CIC wherein disclosure has been ordered under the RTI Act in similar cases before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and are awaiting admission by the Court. The CIC noted that at present Writ Petitions No.5596/2021; 5600/2021 & 5105/2021 are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The appeal was adjourned sine die.
Comments
Disclosure of action taken on complaints has been increasingly sought by different quarters. It is strange that the Hon’ble CIC has adjourned the matter only because a WP is pending before the High Court even when no specific stay has been granted.
Citation: Krishan Kumar v. Central Vigilance Commission in File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/143947, Date of Interim Decision: 13/08/2021
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