RTI Corner

Information regarding the list of pensioners, who are receiving pension from Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration under jurisdiction of Pay and Accounts Office Code 071383, issued by CGHS card in CGHS covered cities across India as also the list along with their details such as names, designation, CGHS card number, date of issue, etc. was sought . The Respondent expressed his inability to address the issues raised by the Appellant and stated that since issuance of CGHS cards was decentralized, no specific data was available with them. The CIC noted that the DoPT constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. The CIC expressed serious concern about the state of recordkeeping within the CGHS and directed the Director, CGHS to depute a team of officials to enquire into the entire matter and provide information to the Appellant. The CIC directed that a comprehensive and robust policy for digitization of its records to be evolved and implemented within a time bound manner for the ease and convenience of all concerned.
Comments
The implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act remains a dream which is yet to be realised in most of the government departments. The Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India had constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. As a part of this Task Force, a sub group on ‘Guidelines for Digital Publication under RTI supporting Proactive Disclosure of Information’ held a one day consultation on ‘Formulating guidelines for digital publication under RTI supporting proactive disclosure of information’. Hopefully, the departments should start implementing the same in the right earnest.
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 copy of Roster of posting/transfer of civilian employees Mech. Infantry Regiment (MIR), which was denied under section 8(1)(j). In the submission to the CIC, Lt. Col. JS Brar, PIO went into the history of the service conduct of the Appellant to persecute his alleged habit of filing RTI Applications. The PIO stated that since the mother of the Appellant has expired, the reason for which he applied for compassionate posting has become null and void. The CIC observed that this by implication suggests that the PIO perhaps intends to apprise the bench that the information sought in the RTI Application is of no use to the Appellant now. The CIC severely warned the PIO to exercise due caution in future in matters of RTI Act. Further, the CIC ruled that as the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was completely inappropriate, the PIO was directed to provide specific and available information as sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost.
Comments
Under the RTI Act, an applicant is not required to provide any reasons for seeking information, nor is the applicant expected to have a pristine service record to be eligible to access information. The Act bestows a statutory right which can be exercised by any citizen irrespective of his reasons or the fact that he is a government servant or not. The PIO is only required to justify the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, without making any submissions relevant to RTI Act.
Citation: R V Wagh v. CPIO, The Mech Infantry Regiment in File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/101803/SD, Date of Decision: 06.02.2019
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 the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Complainant sought a copy of order issued for recovery of amount of HRA and LTC alleged to have been drawn illegally by certain individuals in Directorate of Sugar and Vegetable oil. The PIO submitted that appropriate reply was sent to the Complainant which was returned undelivered citing reason of non-availability of any such person. The CIC upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the Complainant could perhaps be a fictitious person as both - the CPIO reply as well as Commission’s notice of hearing - has come back undelivered with similar remarks. The CIC dismissed the complaint.
Comments
A PIO must send the reply by speed post or registered post and retain the evidence of the reply sent to the RTI applicant which would be handy if a charge of not providing the information is made.
Citation: Lakhinder Singh v. CPIO, Directorate of Sugar and Vegetable Oil, Department of Food and Public Distribution in File No: CIC/DOFPD/C/2017/194444/SD, Date of Decision: 07/01/2019
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 the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/