RTI Corner

The CBDT conveyed to the CIC that the online application filed by the Complainant had not been attended to properly by the then PIO and that it was admitted that on receipt of the notice for hearing before the CIC, they learnt about the lapses on their part. The First Appeal that was filed online had also not been attended to about which the Respondent feigned ignorance. The CIC expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. With regards to the imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI, Act it was stated that the RTI Application was received on the portal, which may not have been accessible to the then CPIO for reasons better known to him. After taking over the charge, the current CPIO had obtained the user ID and password to operationalize the access to the online applications. Penalty was not imposed and the CIC cautioned the PIO to exercise due care in future to ensure that information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant.
Comments
Online filing of RTI Applications was launched with the expectations that it would make the process easy and convenient. In this case, the Respondent admitted that there were a large number of issues in handling the online RTI applications due to technical problems and unskilled manpower. It appears that the whole system of online filing of RTI Applications needs a review.
Citation: Mr. Shiv Kirti Singh v. CPIO M/o. Finance in Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000189-BJ, Dept. of Revenue CBDT, Date of Decision: 17.04.2017, 29.11.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The RTI applicant sought information regarding a certain mediclaim, penal actions that could be taken against the Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon for overcharging Rs. 750/- from insured as per the IRDA guidelines, action taken on complaint made to LIC of India and IGMS relating to the medical claim and issues related thereto. The CIC observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The CIC observed that technically, the RTI queries had been replied by the Public Authority but the discussion during the hearing raised several issues regarding the mediclaims of the family pensioners under LIC-NIA Scheme and the issues associated thereto that need to be addressed meticulously by the Public Authority. The CIC advised the Public Authority officials to re-examine and re-evaluate the steps under taken by them for implementation of the mediclaim policy and ensure that the delivery mechanism is strengthened and made more robust.
Comments
The jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act is limited. While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, 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: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra v. CPIO Manager (CRM) LIC of India, Divisional Office in Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/170260-BJ, Date of Decision: 16.11.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The RTI applicant sought information regarding Shri Ram Gopal and Smt. Archana and other family members, marriage expenditures survey report as per Section 133A (5) of the Income Tax Act with cash flow details i.e., whether they satisfied the cash flow details, whether his father in law, wife, brother in law and sister in law were Income Tax Assesses, if so, whether they were filing the IT Returns on a regular basis and issues related thereto. The CIC directed that the broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the appellant as soon as the investigation is completed.
Comments
In case of Tax evasion petition, the CIC has been taking the view that the complainant should be informed whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue.
Citation: Mr. Rajesh Bharti v. CPIO, O/o the DGIT (Inv), CPIO, O/o the Pr. DIT (Inv), CPIO and ACIT (OSD) (Inv.- IV), M/o Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT in Second Appeal No.: CIC/CCITC/A/2017/156422-BJ, Date of Decision: 16.11.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/