RTI Corner

The appellant sought a copy of the answer sheets in English Language in ICSE Examination which was not provided The Assistant Secretary informed that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act and as such, the information cannot be provided. The CIC observed that the Respondent office has established that it is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. The denial of information was upheld.
Comments
In many previous orders, [CIC in Anil Karla vs. CPIO bearing File No. CIC/MOHRD/C/2019/133799; Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WP No. 12549 (W) of 2016 Dinesh Sinha and others Vs. The ICSE and others; and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 617/2011 CISCE Vs. Ajay Jhuria] has ruled that ICSE is not amenable to RTI Act.
Citation: Yakshay Chheda v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination in CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/650057, Date: 11.03.2022
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 stated that through this appeal he aims to bring out the inconsistency in the procedure followed by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in issuing copyrights registration certificate and problems faced by start-up entrepreneurs. In the absence of hard copy of the copyrights certificate, it will be difficult for the start-ups to challenge infringement of their copyrights in a Court of Law based on mere digitised proofs and the litigation process will thus incur unwarranted costs. The CIC apprised the Appellant about the mandate of the RTI Act and the PIO clarified that digital registration certificate is issued as per their procedure and is indeed an admissible document in a Court of Law. The CIC observed that the Appellant has gone beyond the mandate of the RTI Act in seeking additional information at the First & Second Appeal stage based on the reply received from the CPIO in response to the instant RTI Application while bringing up issues concerning the merits of the administrative processes of the Respondent office. The CIC held that the issues thus raised by the Appellant are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Hansi Rawat and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Delhi High Court held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.
Citation: Ramesh Balasubramaniam v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2020/688343, Date of Decision: 20/01/2022.
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

Action taken on a petition seeking release of Appellant’s husband (a resident of Uttar Pradesh) from the Central Jail, Patiala was sought from the Ministry of Law & Justice. The PIO informed that the subject matter does not concern their department but may be pursued with the appropriate State Government of Uttar Pradesh & Punjab. Before the CIC, the appellant’s advocate argued that the Respondent office should have pursued the case with the concerned public authority. The CIC observed that by virtue of his profession, the appellants’ advocate is expected to be acquainted with the jurisdictional powers of the State and Centre while filing petitions particularly in matters such as the instant one where there is ostensibly no overlap of Centre and State jurisdiction.
Comments
It is one of the rare cases where transfer of application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act has not been insisted upon by the CIC. Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act expects that a RTI application should be filed with the concerned public authority.
Citation: Arati Rajbhar v. Ministry of Law & Justice in File No: CIC/MOLAJ/A/2020/127106, Date of Decision: 27/01/2022.

The Appellant was aggrieved by the fact that his First Appeal was also replied by the PIO (Principal, KVS Mahoba) rather than by the concerned FAA (Deputy Commissioners) which he claimed to be in violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The PIO tendered his unconditional regret for the error committed by the then PIO. The CIC expressed severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in having evaded the responsibility to act in letter and spirit of RTI Act by adjudicating the First Appeal of the Appellant on its own rather than forwarding the same to the concerned FAA. The CIC severely admonished the PIO on this count and cautioned the PIO to be careful in future.
Comments
If the PIO starts replying to the First Appeal as though it is a routine correspondence, it would imply exceeding the jurisdiction mandated under the RTI Act and would make the adjudication of First Appeal infructuous per se.
Citation: Ashok Krishn v. Kendriya Vidyalaya in File No: CIC/KVSAN/A/2020/110307, Date of Decision: 06/08/2021