RTI Corner

No reply about Charitable Trust by the public authority
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 28.12.2023 seeking the information about Chiranjeev Charitable Trust which ran three schools. He asked how he was terminated without any show cause notice after 17 years of service. He sought for the permission letter for name change of the society from the Registrar office and other related information. The CIC observed that as per available record file, no reply was given to the Appellant at the initial stage by the answering Respondent and admonished him for the same. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice from the CIC, a suitable and pointwise reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.10.2025, but, a copy of the same was not received by the Appellant. Accordingly, the CIC directed the Respondent to send a copy to the appellant along with relevant annexures, through speed-post as well as through email. Further, the CIC cautioned the Respondent Public Authority to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
Comments
The simple act of replying to the RTI applicant can prevent the avoidable embarrassment of appearing before the CIC and wastage of time.
Citation: Vikram Singh v. Sub Registrar-VII (INA), Vikas Sadan, New Delh, File No: CIC/REVDP/A/2024/615016; 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 gave his enrollment number and submitted that he had completed his Diploma in Civil Engineering from a particular University in 2014. He wanted to verify whether these details match with the official data records. The PIO informed that the UGC does not verify the Validation of documents and requested the appellant to approach the concerned University. The CIC observed that the Appellant did not seek for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather he sought for clarification or confirmation of a speculative statement. While the PIO attempted to facilitate the Appellant by giving a clarification as though replying to a grievance petition, but the PIO ought to have specified that the Appellant has not asked for any information per se.
Comments
In purely legal terms, the role of the PIO is restricted to providing what is covered under the definition of the term “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It would be prudent for the PIO to examine whether the request of the applicant is within the parameters of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and take action accordingly.
Citation: Praveen Kumar v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/658054; Date of Decision: 13.10.2025
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

A husband sought for the current balance of PPF account and last amount deposit of his wife enclosing the copy of marriage certificate as the evidence of marriage. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Before the CIC, the PIO explained that as per the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, the consent from the concerned third-party and wife of the appellant was sought. However, she had declined consent for disclosure of information relating to her PPF account. The CIC noted that there is no public interest and rejected the appeal.
Comments
Many couples feel that they have a right to seek information about their spouse from a government agency. Legally, husband and wife are distinct individuals and the information relating to each of them has to be considered personal to each one of them.
Citation: Vipin Mittal v. Department of Post, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/645016; 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 filed an application seeking information whether it is mandatory to have SEBI Registered License with person or company who teaching about stock market and whether SEBI takes Complaint against stock market educator person or company who is Non Registered with SEBI. The PIO replied that it cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act as it is in the nature of seeking clarification. The CIC observed that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted and upheld that reply provided by the PIO.
Comments
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the public authority under any other law for the time being in force. A public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Further, many public authorities provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens as a public relation exercise. But the same is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
Citation: Akshay Vasani v. Securities And Exchange Board of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/644498; Date of Decision: 31.10.2025
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 sought a certified copy of the initial map related to a particular building which was donated to Jhansi Cantonment Board for construction purposes. The appellant also sought a certified copy of the General Land Register, total property tax assessed and other related information. As no response was received within the prescribed time period, the appellant filed the first appeal and later the second appeal before the CIC. According to the arguments presented by the respondent, the current PIO, who was responsible for disposing of the submitted RTI application has retired, and no show cause notice proceedings can be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act against a retired PIO. The CIC directed the current PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to ensure timely and proper disposal of pending RTI applications in accordance with the law, failing which appropriate action shall be taken against them in the future under the provisions of the Act. Further, the CIC directed the PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to examine the information sought by the appellant through the submitted RTI application and, based on the available records, provide the requested information/response to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Comments
A coordinate bench of the CIC in Appeal Nos. CIC/PB/2008/00999 and CIC/SM/A/2009/000286 dated 13-05-2010 held that since the concerned PIO has retired from the service, we find it not possible to impose any penalty on him at this point of time. The precedent was followed in many subsequent orders like Shri Chander Prakash v. AAI, CIC/SS/C/2013/000053 dated 18.12.2013. The RTI Act does not specifically debar action against the PIO on superannuation.
Citation: Sudhir Choudhary v.Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi Cantonment Board, File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/114007; Date of order: 03.11.2025
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