RTI Corner

Col (Retd) Satpal Singh Sandhu had filed RTI application dated 28.04.2021 for inspection of certain files. He authorised Mr. Prem Kumar Singh and Mr. Anil Bakshi to inspect the said files. Accordingly, Mr. Prem Kumar Singh visited the office of CPIO of Defence Estate Office, but the desired inspection of the said files was not provided. During the hearing before the CIC, the representative of Prem Kumar Singh was present, but had failed to send the authority letter in advance of the hearing. The CIC observed that the present complaint is not admissible. The complainant has no onus in filing this complaint as the RTI application was not filed by him but Col (Retd) Satpal Singh Sandhu. Therefore, the Commission did not admit the complaint. However, the CIC ruled that the RTI applicant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in his name and seek condonation of delay, citing the present order.
Comment
Only the RTI applicant is entitled to file an appeal or a complaint. The RTI applicant may authorise another individual to represent him in the course of hearing.
Citation: In the matter of: Prem Kumar Singh (under authority from Satpal Singh Sandhu) v. Defence Estate Office, File No. CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/135827, Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
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

Appellant sought a Hindi version of the information provided in English u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI on the website of MECON which was not provided. On a query, the PIO informed that there is a Rajbhasa Adhikari in the office and in case time is allowed, information can be translated. The CIC observed that available information was given. However, the CPIO can take assistance from the Rajbhasa Adhikari and have the material translated for each and every document disclosed u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and provide the same within 45 days to the appellant by uploading the same on the website and giving him the hyperlink. Further, the CIC directed that in the interest of transparency, the PIO can ensure that Hindi version of the documents are made available on the website, wherever possible.
Comments
Ordinarily, the information has to be provided in the form in which it is available woth the public authority. However, the proactive disclosure should be done in Hindi too to the extent feasible.
Citation: Ashish Kumar Singh v. MECON Limited, File No. CIC/MECON/A/2021/641089, Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
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

Neeraj Shridhar of the Bombay Vikings fame filed an application under RTI Act seeking information about details of IT returns and balance sheet pertaining to his wife and all companies owned by her. He claimed that the information was needed to defend divorce petition as well as for taking legal action against his wife. On not receiving a reply, the appellant approached the CIC. In pursuance of the Appellant’s praying urging that the information is being requested for a maintenance in a matrimonial dispute and by applying the same yardstick as applicable to a wife in such cases, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of the wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days.
Comments
The use of RTI Act to obtain information about the Income of the spouse in Divorce/ Dowry act cases is not uncommon. The copy of income tax returns of the third party is not liable to be disclosed as it is the personal information which is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant has not been able to establish any larger public interest in the matter.
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