RTI Corner

The appellant sought information regarding the date on which a particular postal order was allegedly encashed by the Jhansi Development Authority (JDA). The PIO replied that the sought information is not available. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that it is not possible to provide the information sought by the applicant due to non-availability in their office. Since the appellant had addressed the postal order in question to JDA, the postal order in question must have been cashed by them through a post office, therefore, the information sought can be obtained from JDA Office only. Further, the records are kept till 18 months only and the said IPO pertains to year 2018, and hence the information was not preserved till that time. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the PIO does not contain any reference to the record retention policy or the preservation period of the records. Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish a revised reply mentioning their record retention policy for weeding out the records.
Comments
Had the PIO given the details of the record retention policy, the whole sequence of first and second appeal could have been avoided. Hence, all PIO’s must ensure a proper reply at the initial stage to avoid unnecessary proceedings.
Citation:Smt. Saira Bano v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/623911; Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
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 that he was aggrieved by denial of legal aid and had sought information with respect to the same. He was not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent and requested that the Respondent may be directed to consider his plea seeking legal aid to pursue the litigation filed by him. The CIC observed that the Appellant’s application seeking free legal aid had been already declined by the Scrutiny & Evaluation Committee and he had been duly informed accordingly. The CIC further observed that the scope of the RTI Act does not extend beyond providing information as available in official records. Therefore, delving into the question of reason behind and/or correctness of denial of legal aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is irrelevant as it falls outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Comments
The PIO can only be expected to provide the facts as available on records. However, Section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act directs the public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Citation: Shri Gajender Nath v. High Court Of Delhi Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Second Appeal No. CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/134118/HCDEL; Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
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 submitted that he had been serving as Branch Manager in the Vikas Nagar Branch (PNB) of Nainital for 6 years and a complaint was filed against him concerning a dishonored cheque. He further argued that an investigation was conducted in the complaint and despite being the aggrieved party, copy of the report was not shared with him. The PIO of Punjab National Bank submitted that an investigation was conducted in the complaint as per recommendation of higher authorities. However, the report contained details regarding certain commercial operations carried out by the respondent bank, hence, the report was denied to the appellant as per provisions under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the information concerns the appellant and non-disclosure of the same would not only adversely affect the rights of the appellant being the aggrieved party, but would also amount to violation of principles of natural justice. While the exemption claimed under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act may be applicable to certain portions of the report, the PIO is at liberty to redact the said portions as per procedure of severability laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the Bank to re-examine the matter and disclose a redacted copy of the averred report after blackening out details exempted under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, if any, reflecting the broad outcome of the report to the appellant.
Comments
Ther have been many cases where an application has been filed under the RTI Act seeking copy of the investigation report. The application may be filed by the complainant, the accused or a third party and usually the public authority tends to deny the information.
Citation: Yogesh Kumar Goyal v. Punjab National Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/128777; Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
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 issue before the CIC was whether to hear the appeal in cases where the RTI application, first appeal and the subsequent second appeals was filed collectively by two citizens. The CIC referred to Section 6 (a) of the RTI Act, which stipulates that a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. The CIC observed that in the instant case, the RTI applications, the First Appeal and the subsequent second appeal, all have been filed collectively by two citizens, Pawan Gupta & Vijender Kumar Gupta and therefore, the RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, not being filed in individual capacity, are not maintainable. The CIC dismissed the appeal.
Comments
In case of Mr Samir Kumar Haldar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, CIC/SG/A/2010/001429/8585 dated 16 July 2010, the appellant had filed an RTI application which was also signed by seven other people. The CIC observed that the PIO's rejection was completely wrong since there is nothing in the law or the rules preventing more than one citizen from submitting the RTI application. The CIC referred to Section3 of the RTI Act which states, "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have Right to Information". The CIC had then ruled that the PIO's rejection has no basis in law.
Citation: Pawan Gupta & Vijender Kumar Gupta v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/140271; Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
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 GST returns were denied by the PIO taking recourse to the Section 158 (1) of CGST Act, 2017. The CIC referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702, dealing with the disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was observed that while the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. The CIC agreed with the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information and held that intervention is not warranted in the matter.
Comments
The supremacy of RTI Act by virtue of Section 22 has been the issue for interpretation in different cases. Section 22 provides that the provisions of RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The proponents of the RTI Act have vehemently argued that information can be denied to an applicant by taking recourse to only section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act.
Citation: V Bethuran v. O/o the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai, File No: CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/130359; Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
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/