RTI Corner

Clarification regarding Para 1.4.1 of Medical Council of India, Code of Ethics wherein it was stated that "every physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/ Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to his patients, whether the medical prescriptions were issued by doctors without registration numbers; if so, will it be considered as a legal documents in Court of Law. The PIO stated that the queries raised by the Appellant were eliciting opinion and therefore it did not constitute as "information" defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that wanton aggressive behavior of the patients for the neglect of services by the Doctors is understandable, it is also necessary to protect the rights of the patients aggrieved by wrongful treatment and faulty prescriptions given by the Doctors. The CIC asked the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare as also Ministry of AYUSH to exercise due diligence in enforcing the Code of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics laid down by the Medical Council in such a manner that it should not endanger the life and physical safety of any person owing to violation of any of the clauses laid down in the aforesaid Regulations. If necessary, the Government may re-visit extant guidelines and re-formulate certain Rules / Regulations for its enforcement and for initiating penal action.
Comments
There is a thin line between what constitutes “information” under the RTI Act and the manner in which authorities should enforce transparency. The RTI Act is aimed at holding the authorities accountable for their actions. This is a classic case where RTI Act has been used to implement norms.
Citation: Ms. Rita Hore v. Medical Council of India in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/611068-BJ; Date of Decision: 26.06.2019
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

As information pertaining to State Bank of India was sought, the RBI forwarded the RTI Application to the concerned PIO, SBI under section 6 (3) of RTI Act as the information sought did not belong to the respondent public authority. The CIC observed that since the RBI is not the custodian of information, therefore the requested information cannot be provided by the RBI. The Commission held that as per the provisions of section 6 (3) of RTI Act, the RTI Application can only be transferred to another public authority comes within the organization wherein in the present case the information sought pertains to a separate public authority which does not fall within the respondent organization. The respondent could have advised the appellant to approach the concerned pubic authority instead of transferring the RTI Application by themselves. Hence, the respondent has wrongly transferred the instant RTI Application to the O/o SBI. The Commission cautioned the RBI to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Section 6(3) permits transfer of the application under intimation to the applicant if the information is held by another public authority or if the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority. Thus, the inference drawn by the CIC that application can only be transferred to another public authority which comes within the organization u/s 6(3) is not legal and proper. The sec 6(3) allows transfer of application to a separate public authority which does not fall within the respondent organization.
Citation: Mr. Parsuram Mishra v. Reserve Bank of India in Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2020/136684, Date of decision: 04.07.2022
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 whether a Superintendent of CGST (third party) has taken station leave permission to visit CBI Delhi office for more than 50 times during year 2015 to 2020 and related information. The PIO informed that on the basis of available record, the third party has neither applied nor granted any station leave to visit CBI Delhi office. The PIO submitted that the Appellant wanted an answer terms of Yes or No which is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the OM dated 11.09.2012 was applicable as it relates to official tours for the Joint Secretary and above rank which is not the case here. The CIC observed that concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised interrogative and speculative queries regarding a third party. The CIC held that the clarifications sought for relate to a third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further held that the appellant is seeking an action which is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act.
Comments
Looking into the extent of the RTI Act in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. In another case, the Supreme Court held that the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.
Citation: Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner, Vadodata-1, CGST Commissionerate, File No : CIC/CCEVD/A/2021/641582, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
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 details of meeting-wise honorarium paid to Chairman and each member of Bar Council was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC upheld the denial citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044, 10045, 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified.
Comments
Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.
Citation: Maman Chand Sharma v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in File No: CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
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

Appellant had a personal grievance regarding schemes offered by Tata Sky DTH Services. He sought information about the schemes offered by Tata Sky DTH Services to its retail customers and the regulatory actions which can be taken by TRAI against service providers where they do not give the credit of the schemes offered by them to the eligible customers. The Commission observed that the TRAI is the controlling authority and therefore, whatever information was accessible u/s Sec 2(j) of the RTI Act by them was given. Further, the applicant’s plea that updated information should be given is considered in the interest of justice as the PIO also had admitted that the hyperlink given may not be working due to change of website domain etc. The CIC ruled that no action is taken on the complaint as no malafide intent could be found on the part of the PIO. However, in terms of the second appeal, the PIO was directed to make an effort to obtain the information from the service provider and the inputs received be forwarded to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Comments
The case law shows how the regulatory authority can be used to obtain information from a private service provided who is otherwise not covered under the definition of public authority.
Citation: Akshay Kumar Malhotra v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in CIC/TRAOI/A/2021/147091+ CIC/TRAOI/C/2021/145847, Date of Decision: 19/09/2022
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