RTI Corner

Appellant filed RTI application seeking information about the status of Vigilance Enquiry against Shri Balraj for alleged filing of false affidavit and related information. The Respondent submitted that similar matter was heard and adjudicated by the Commission earlier in CIC/DELJB/C/2017/156869 dated 16.05.2019 and that the investigation in the case was completed as on date. On being queried regarding the compliance of the aforementioned order directing the PIO to send a reply afresh to the Complainant within 2 weeks, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent. The CIC instructed the Respondent to ensure the compliance of the earlier order pronounced by the CIC and provide a revised reply to the Appellant within a period of 02 weeks from the date of this order under intimation to the CIC failing which penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act may be initiated.
Comments
This case shows that the Information Commission does possess an independent mechanism to ensure compliance of its own orders. The number of cases where the PIO has not complied with the directions of the CIC is likely to increase in the absence of fear of penalty.
Citation: Shri MadanSain v. PIO, DJB in Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/131952, Date of Decision: 14.02.2020
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant requested for information regarding Prof. Dheeraj Sharma’s recruitment in IIM, Ahmedabad including the academic background and documentary evidences of the same. The PIO submitted that whatever information was available was provided to the appellant. The appellant requested for inspection of the relevant documents. The CIC observed that the information sought by the appellant was regarding a third person namely Prof. Dheeraj Sharma which is purely in the nature of personal information of a third party and thus exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC cautioned the PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and ensure that such kind of mistakes do not occur in future.
Comments
Disclosure of third party information without giving a third party notice indicates the pathetic level of knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. IIM, Ahmedabad, being the premier management institute of the country, is expected to set example in all fields. The irreparable loss caused to the third party by the disclosure of information which is beyond the scope of the RTI Act cannot be undone.
Citation: Nirmalya Bandyopadhyay v. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in Decision no.: -CIC/IIMAH/A/2019/114008/02862, Date of Decision: 12/02/2020
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the rules/guidelines etc. regarding the appointment of Postmaster as CAPIO in various sections of post offices and duties assigned to them. The appellant submitted to the CIC that he received the requisite information but is aggrieved due to the inordinate delay of almost 21 months. The CIC found that the PIO had correctly guided the appellant to the website of the public authority where the sought for information is available. The CIC held that the appellant’s contention regarding delay was unfounded.
Comments
If the information sought by an applicant is available in public domain such as on the website of the pubic authority, the CPIO is not bound to give hard copies of the documents. The CPIO should guide the applicant to the website of the public authority giving the specific link of the page where the information is available.
Citation: Girish Prasad Gupta v. Department of Posts in Decision no.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/151473/02692, Date of Decision: 22/01/2020
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: www.rtifoundationofindia.com