RTI Corner

The appellant requested pertaining to the selection of a student in the PGP 24-26 program. He requested to confirm whether Saransh Upadhyaya has been selected on a seat earmarked for EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota at IIM Ahmedabad. Alternatively, he requested to confirm the quota on which the selection has been done. The PIO replied that the information contains personal information of student. Hence, information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. The CIC noted that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the sought information is exempted under Section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. The appellant has to establish larger public interest to seek any personal information relating to a third party.
Citation: Satish Chhiber v. Indian Institute of Management: Ahmedabad, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMAH/A/2024/629101; Date of Decision: 10.10.202
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

Vide RTI application dated 29.04.2024, the appellant sought information about the Provident Fund Statement, PF trust being declared unexempted, his PF amount transferred to EPFO department etc. but did not receive any response. During hearing, upon the CIC’s query on not replying to the appellant within stipulated time limit, the respondent submitted that the earlier CPIO retired, and he has recently joined the respondent’s office and was not aware of the online RTI application. To this, the CIC questioned how an online RTI application can go unnoticed. In terms of the information to be furnished, the CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant vide written submission dated 07.10.2025. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Further, the CIC took a serious view of the fact that the respondent did not reply to the appellant within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act and issued a show cause notice to the CPIO as to why action should not be initiated against him/her for not replying to the appellant’s RTI request within prescribed time limit.
Comments
One of the basic tenets of the RTI Act is that an applicant should receive a reply within the prescribed time limit. With the digital tracking of the RTI Application, it is incumbent upon the PIO to reply as per the prescribed time period or face consequences.
Citation: Biju Soman v. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/HINAL/A/2024/134731; Date of Decision:15.10.2025
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 contended during telephonic hearing before CIC that he had sought the statements dated 13.09.2023 collected by the Delhi Police, but the same had been denied to him by the Police authorities under the pretext that it had been submitted before the Court. But the statements were not available even in the Court records. The Respondent agreed to search the said statements in their records and make the same available for the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO, O/o ACP Kalyanpuri to grant inspection of the relevant records pertaining to the queries raised by the Appellant, specifically the statements recorded by the Delhi Police on 13.09.2023, on a mutually convenient date and time. The CIC directed that copies of documents identified by the Appellant shall be provided to him upon payment of fees as stipulated under the Act. The Respondent were given the liberty to deny records containing any information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also apply provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while disclosing the records as sought by the Appellant.
Comments
While replying to an application, the veracity of facts must be verified by the PIO. A vigilant PIO would have exercised due caution before informing the RTI applicant that the documents have been submitted to the Court which was subsequently found to be factually incorrect, saving an embarassment.
Citation: Shri Vikrant v. Delhi Police, Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/643049; Date of Decision: 21.08.2025
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 asked for a certified copy of the RNI Registration Certificate of "Dominican Ashram" vide Registration No. 46971/88. Before the CIC, the Appellant stated that the information has not been provided to him and it was wrongly denied by the then PIO ignoring the fact that it is a public document. The Respondent submitted that the registration certificate of registered newspapers are in public domain which can be easily accessed from their official website https://prgi.nic.in/registration-title-data-details/. During the hearing before the CIC, the Respondent opened the link on the computer system of the Bench and showed the e-certificate and also handed over a hard copy of e-certificate to the Appellant which was taken on record. The CIC held that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent to the Appellant during hearing which is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be thorough with the content accessible on the website of the organization failing which errors may be committed or, time may be spent on making available an information which has already been made public.
Citation: Jose Abraham v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/609589; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
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