RTI Corner

An application was filed under the RTI Act by Shri Shankar Khalid, Director for Shivani Flexipack Ltd. seeking certified copies of E.R.1s electronically filed by them and related information. The CIC observed that there is nothing on record which shows that the RTI and second appeal has been filed by a ‘citizen’ as per Section 3 of the RTI Act and by the applicant. Information should have been sought by the same citizen in his individual capacity at the time of appeal. In the present case, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that he/she has sought information in his/her individual capacity but as legal entity. The appellant has also not proved his/her identity or given any of his identity proof to show that he/she was seeking information in second appeal in his/her individual capacity. The CIC held that the appellant is a company but not an individual and therefore, the RTI application/appeal of the appellant is not tenable as per Section 3 of the RTI Act.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, only a citizen has the right to obtain information from a public authority and to file appeal. In many cases the CIC has held that if a verifiable name is there is an application, it is can be taken as an application filed by that individual who also happens to hold a position in a company.
Citation: Shivani Flexipack Ltd. v. CPIO, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner Central GST, Division-I, Satara in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCSTM/A/2019/104058, Date of Decision: 27.01.2021
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 ITR details of his father Late Sh. Madan Lal. He admitted that he is not the sole heir of Late Sh. Madan Lal. The respondent contended that there is an ongoing dispute among the brothers of the appellant with regard to the sole heirship and accordingly, they have claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for denying the ITR details. The CIC held that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the ITR details of Late Sh. Madan Lal which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Ordinarily, the legal heir is entitled to the information pertaining to the deceased. This case throws up a situation where there are multiple legal heirs and only one is seeking the information.
Citation: Kamal Aggarwal v. O/o the Income Tax Officer in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155973 CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155918, CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155917, CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155916 & CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155914, Date of Decision: 22-01-2021
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 applicant sought to know about the monthly salary paid to her husband. The PIO claimed that DRDO is an exempt organisation u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act and hence no information could be given. The CIC observed that the DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged, nothing contained in RTI Act shall apply to the DRDO. As no case of human rights violation or corruption was made out by the Appellant, the CIC upheld the submissions of the PIO.
Comments
Section 4 (1)(b) (x) calls upon the Public Authorities to disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees. However, Sec 24 (1) says that nothing contained in the RTI Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule. Hence, even the information which is required to be pro-actively disclosed under the RTI Act cannot be sought in respect of organisations listed in the second schedule.
Citation: Sarika v. DRDO, RTI Cell, Defence Material & Stores Research and Development Establishment in File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/104760, Date of Decision: 28/01/2021
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