RTI Corner

Daughter of Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta and Sumati Rani Bhakta sought to know on what ground her mother got employment in the life time of her father. The applicant submitted that her father was mentally not well and therefore her mother was given employment and there is a dispute regarding landed property among the legal heirs. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the information. The information with regard to appointment of Smt. Sumati Rani Bhakta was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any larger public interest, the reply of the CPIO is accepted and no further action is called for.
Comments
It is not uncommon to see RTI applications being filed to settle scores in cases of personal animosity. However, irrespective of the purpose, personal information cannot be provided unless there is a larger public interest..
Citation: Shikha Paul v. Metal & Steel Factory in File no.: - CIC/DODFP/A/2020/113465, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021
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 applicant sought copies of marks awarded in different levels of examination to the appellant and other candidates, by each Member of the Recruitment Board constituted for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher at Air Force School, Sarsawa. The applicant submitted that all the schools of Air Force are built on the land allotted to the Air Force Complex which is government land and in addition, the building for these schools is also being constructed by the Air Force with the government funds received from the Defence budget allocated to the Indian Air Force. The PIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to Air Force School, Sarsawa. Air Force Schools are run under the aegis of “The Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society” and do not fall under the term “Public Authority”. It is a non-public fund venture and does not fall under the definition of public authority as per Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the AFS Sarsawa is not a public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO was asked whether they can obtain any information from the custodian to which he submitted that they work in ex-officio capacity and will not be able to access information. In view of the same the Commission is not able to provide any relief.
Comments
In the case of Union of India and another v. Chotelal and Others on 8.12.1998, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the characters of the Regimental Fund, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said fund cannot be held to be public fund by any stretch of imagination.
Citation: Priyanka Taneja v. Indian Air Force in File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2020/108465, Date of Decision: 01/11/2021
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

Information about upgradation of empanelment was sought including copy of the internal files, part files and any other note sheets or other relevant documents. The FAA denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the most pertinent questions which require adjudication in this case are: i) list of independent experts on the Committee and ii) comments of each expert committee member. The CIC further observed FAA’s order suffered from mis-application of the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence was set aside. Referring to the decisions of the Apex Court wherein disclosure of such details have been specifically denied invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the CIC noted that the pleadings fail to indicate as to how disclosure of the list of members of the Committee and their comments could serve larger public interest. The CIC declined to disclose the information..
Comments
In the cases of i) Kerala Public Service Commission v. SIC & Ors. and ii) Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, disclosure of information about examiners/ independent experts of the Committee or comments of the said members was denied.
Citation: Dr. Kumud Diwan v. Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Second Appeal No. CIC/ICCRL/A/2019/153496, Date of Decision : 02.11.2021
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

In respect of the Company Termination Notice and the reason for the inordinate delay in bringing his case to a close, the information sought by the complainant was rejected under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, holding that it pertains to aviation security related matters. The complainant stated that information was denied without any reasons or justification despite the fact that the same pertained to his own disciplinary proceedings and withdrawal of Airport Entry Permit (AEP). The respondent stated that a petition has been filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) is also a party. The CIC observed that no plausible explanation for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act was provided by the PIO and the same is without any clear justification which is against Section 7 (8) (i) of the Act. The CIC ruled that the plea of the Respondent regarding the ongoing matter before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi bears no relevance to the facts of the instant case since the RTI Act does not provide for any exemption u/s 8 as per which information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is subjudice. The CIC directed the PIO, BCAS to show cause and submit an explanation stating the reasons/ justifications for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act by 30.11.2021.
Comments
The information cannot be denied merely on the ground that the matter is pending before the Court of law. The matter being sub-judice is not a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd) v. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736, Date of Decision: 14.10.2021
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