RTI Corner

Information about allotment of lease and release from seizure of land comprising a particular GLR Survey No. was sought. The Directorate General Defence Estates replied that the Appellant mentioned incorrect date of application for allotment of lease in his RTI Application because of which the relevant information could not be provided to him and therefore, the Appellant was advised to file a fresh RTI Application in their office with correct date of application. The respondent added that First Appeal has been adjudicated on 31.05.2024 and the same has been taken on record. The Commission noted that the Appellant has willfully suppressed the replies provided by the CPIO and FAA while filing the instant Second Appeal. The CIC commented that the appellant has not approached the CIC with clean hands and his conduct is not appreciated.
Comments
The probability of obtaining the information sought increases if the conduct of the RTI applicant is transparent.
Citation: Chandra Kant Sonkar v. Directorate General Defence Estates, File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/118526; Date of Decision: 12.12.2025
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

Through four different RTI applications, the complainant sought different information from Bar Council of India such as the Audited accounts of the last 5 years of BCI, Compliance of section 4(1) of the RTI Act, the minutes of meeting of the Trustees, copy of the Income/Expenditure & Balance sheet, copy of the Bar Council of India Pearl Trust, Copies of the inspection report, Minutes of the meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India etc. The CIC noted the vague reply and delay in responding to the RTI application and directed the PIO to submit a suitable explanation as to why no action should be initiated for the variations in their stance. In the other complaint, a notice was issued why action should be initiated for the vague and evasive reply which has not even been submitted before the CIC. Further in another complaint, the CIC issued a show cause notice Mr. Anil Kumar, PIO, BCI why penalty should not be levied upon him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not furnishing any response.
Comments
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is a statutory body established by the Parliament under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate and represent the Indian Bar. The BCI prescribes the standards of professional conduct and etiquettes and also set standards for legal education. If such a premier body fumbles in implementing section 4 of the RTI Act and is served a SCN for imposing penalty, the legal profession is in for a rude shock.
Citation: Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India, CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/645329 + /652361 + /652362 + /652360: Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
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 information about the marks scored by him in the examination conducted for the Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF Examination. The information was denied and on query by the CIC, the respondent submitted that it was not declared by the Appellant in his RTI Application that his result was withheld, which is why such a reply was provided to him. The appellant argued that since information related to one of the candidates has been provided, he is also entitled to access the information related to him now since the OA stands disposed of. The appellant submitted that the averred OA infructuous and the interim order that the PIO is relying upon to withhold the information of the candidates in a sealed cover was no longer stipulated to be in operation whilst passing the final order. The averred final order stipulates that all pending MA(s) are also disposed of with another connected OA being described as infructuous and this order significantly predates the date of filing of the RTI Application. Additionally, the PIO has not complied with the averred FAA’s order which was leaning in favor of the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to submit a written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide a proper reply to the RTI Application at the original instance as the queries of different nature i.e distinct from the mere marks and result of the Appellant were left unattended by providing an unwarranted cumulative reply. Further, the PIO was also directed to explain the prima-facie non-compliance of the FAA’s order within 15 days. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available information regarding the Appellant’s result and OMR sheet as sought for.
Comments
In many instances, it has been pointed out that the marks scored by an individual should be provided to him/her unless any of the exemption sections of the RTI Act, 2005 can be invoked to deny the information.
Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2024/633982; Date of Decision: 10.09.2025
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 information about the SC and ST Professors currently employed at IIM Ranchi, the vacancy position, the special recruitment drives etc. which did not result into any response from the PIO. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was forwarded to Mr. Amit Kumar, (HR), subsequently, reminders were also sent but no response had been received from him. Upon receipt of hearing notice, the information was collected from the concerned office and uploaded on the Commission’s weblink. The CIC noted that the respondent has not responded to the RTI application in spite of over 1½ years having elapsed. The reply uploaded on Commission’s web portal has not provided to the appellant. The CIC noted that the PIO has not been made any efforts to furnish a response to the appellant even upon receipt of hearing notice and he failed to explain the cogent reasons for the same. The CIC issued a Show-cause notice to PIO, Mr. Rajasekhar David, Assistant Professor, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him for not responding to the RTI application within stipulated time.
Comments
It is disquieting that instances continue to arise where the CIC has no option but to issue show-cause notices to PIOs for neglecting to respond to RTI applications within the statutory timeframe, thereby inviting penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. If the case pertains to a premier management institute, one wonders whether it is a case of lack if awareness of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Citation: Raju Paswan v. Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMRC/A/2024/643443; 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