RTI Corner

The complainant had sought information regarding the exact number of Nikkah (Marriage) conducted by the Janab. M. Mohamed Ali Maraicar, Khazi, Karaikal District since his appointment in the post till 30.9.2023. The application was forwarded under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 since certain information sought in the application pertain to the other office with a request to provide the required information directly to the applicant. The CIC noted that the PIO took appropriate steps under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to forward the request to the authority holding the information (District Government Khazi), and the Complainant was informed about the same. Subsequently, a composite reply was provided on 19.12.2023. The CIC held that there is no evidence of wilful denial or refusal by the Respondent authority and disposed of the complaint.
Comments
The RTI Act mandates that where a public authority does not hold the information but has made bona fide efforts to forward the request to the relevant authority, the PIO is not held liable under the Act as no mala fide iss established on part of the Respondent.
Citation: J Mohammed Bilal v. Puducherry State Waqf Board, CIC/UTPON/C/2024/102435; Date of Decision 01.05.2025
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 sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to this son admitted in IIM Rohtak (IPL) in 2023. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished that the institute had no record of documents requested by the appellant. The Commission noted that documents sought in the RTI application are not available with the respondent and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant.
Citation: Brijesh Kumar Sharma v. Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMRO/A/2024/644911; Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
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 asked the IIM Bangalore to provide the exact and specific reasons regarding why he was not called for the interview for PhD programme. The PIO informed that the Pre-Pi score of the appellant was lower than the cut-off required for the CFI process under the NC-OBC category. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the parameters of shortlisting the candidates had not been provided by the PIO. Moreover, the reasons for not calling him for the interview had also not provided till date. The CIC held that the appellant has sought reasons, which does not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The Hon’ble Bombay High court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008), held that the definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
Citation: Anshul Bisen v. Indian Institute of Management–Bangalore, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMBL/A/2024/631898; Date of Decision: 10.10.2025
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

Information about the policy and instructions regarding the allotment of Government accommodation (Residences, Covered Car Parks, Camp Offices) to the incumbent or Ex. Ministers of Cabinet/State/ Deputy or equivalent status, incumbent or Ex. Member of Parliament between May 1, 2001 and October 30, 2023 was sought by the appellant. Further information about who had overstayed in the Government accommodation, the penal rent collected and copy of notices served etc. was also sought. The PIO replied that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous as the Appellant is seeking information for 22 years which requires collection and collation of data and providing the same would divert the time and resources of the public authority as per the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The CIC declined to intervene in the matter observing that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure. The CIC pointed out that public interest is different from public curiosity.
Comments
There has been a long standing discussion about defining the boundaries of Public Interest - Information which is of interest to the public and something which is in the public interest. It raises a pertinent question whether any amount which has been condoned for overstaying in government accommodation should be disclosed.
Citation: Saurabh Kumar v. Directorate of Estates, File No: CIC/DOEST/A/2024/124871; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
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