RTI Corner

The PIO submitted that the copy of ACR/APAR of the Appellant and DPC note sheet was denied because he is a Defence Civilian employee. The Central Information Commission observed that the PIO has grossly erred in denying Appellant’s own ACR/APAR to him and the reasoning provided for the denial lacks rationality. The PIO was directed to provide copy of ACR/APAR of the Appellant, the copy of the relevant DPC note sheet and promotion order after appropriately blacking out portions pertaining to third party.
Comments
As per the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors, the disclosure of ACR remarks of a “public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military)” is the rule.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought to inspect claim applications for 13th Press council made by certain Journalists Union and copies thereof. The CIC directed the PIO to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the ‘in-camera’ hearing to explain the denial of information under Section 8(1)(d), (j) and (e) of RTI Act. The CIC perused the records in detail and observed that apart from general information regarding the constitution, registration of the unions there are innumerable personal details of their members as well as financial details of the respective unions therein which cannot be even severed for provision. Observing that the no larger public interest has been claimed by the applicant, the CIC upheld the denial of information.
Comments
Just like any other Court, the CIC too holds ‘in camera’ proceedings. In case the information cannot be severed, the information can be denied to the RTI Applicant.
Citation: Vipin Dhuliya v. CPIO, Press Council of India in File No: CIC/PCIND/A/2017/170297/SD, Date of Final Decision: 30.11.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

Details of criminal case registered against officers by CBI was denied u/s 24. The CIC took grave exception to the attempt of the representative of the CPIO to misrepresent facts during hearing to merely stand by the denial of information. The CPIO was warned to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 of RTI Act and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies for all cases alike in future. The CIC observed that “it is unnerving to note that the CPIO does not mention his/her name in the replies provided under RTI Act which further reflects on the prima-facie evasive and callous approach of the CPIO in owning up to his/her acts of omission and commission”.
Comment
The reply to every RTI application should bear the name of the CPIO and each application should dealt with individually. A common cyclostyled reply for all cases should could land up the CPIO in trouble.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding the approval of the buildings of Lawrence School Lovedale by the DTCP, number of canteens/ hostels, if any, in the aforementioned school, documentary evidence regarding their licensing by the competent authority was sought. As the information was not provided, the matter came up before the CIC. The representative of MHRD present at the hearing submitted that the School Authorities were not furnishing information despite the fact that they were a Public Authority and as per the letter issued by them No. F. No. 4-24/2007-Sch. 3 dated 01.09.2008, it was declared that the school fell under the ambit of Public Authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC directed the Lawrence School Lovedale to disclose the information sought by the Appellant.
Comments
If an organisation is financed by government and it cannot function in the absence of such substantial financing, it would come within the ambit of a public authority.
Citation: Mr. Rajasekaran M v. CPIO and Headmistress, The Lawrence School Lovedale, The Nilgiris, Ooatacamund Tamil Nadu in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSELI/A/2018/185255-BJ, Date of Decision : 01.01.2019
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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/