RTI Corner

Information in respect of election in Sri Ram CGHS Itd. was sought. The CIC noted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent. The CIC observed that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. The CIC issued an advisory u/s 25 (5) of the RTI Act to the Respondent Public Authority to provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal in view of principle of natural justice.
Comments
There is no specific provision in the RTI Act, 2005 which provides for a compulsory personal hearing before the first appellate authority. However, it would be incumbent upon the FAA to grant a personal hearing to the appellant if it has been sought. The principles of natural justice should be followed.
Citation: S K T Sherman v. O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies, File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/624441; Date of Decision: 18.08.2025
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

Mentioning his Aadhar Card Number, the appellant requested to provide a print of the ten fingers and thumb impressions taken on biometric. The PIO replied that the "core biometric information" has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Aadhaar Act and there is a clear prohibition under the law against sharing or using core biometrics for any reason whatsoever. The CIC held that appropriate response in keeping with the provisions of the law has been duly provided to the Appellant. The CIC further observed that since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
Comments
When a citizen seeks information which originates from him, the public authority can take the plea that the information is not “held” by it. However, in this case, the CIC has remained silent about section 22 of the RTI Act (Act to have overriding effect) and has preferred not to discuss which Act is supreme in case of inconsistencies between them.
Citation: Shri Suresh Chand Meena v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/638600; Date of Decision: 04.09.2025
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 the date wise LTC Concession (Economy Class) air fare displayed on https://www.irctc.co.in/Portal between Mumbai and Varanasi for the Period 01st to 30th November 2021. The PIO replied that the Historical Airfare data of Airlines is not stored by IRCTC. The Airline fares are governed by Airlines and are very dynamic which may vary as per the seat availability at the time and date of booking. It is the duty of the person booking the ticket to take the screenshot of the comparative fares flashed on the screen at the time of booking the ticket, because it keeps on changing and it is not possible to recapitulate later on the same at the relevant time. The CIC observed that as far as RTI application is concerned, appropriate reply has been furnished by the Respondents and upheld the same. The Appellant made a prayer during the hearing to provide a certified copy of downloaded fares. In this regard, the CIC held that it is an extended relief claimed which has never been sought in the original RTI application and rejected the same.
Comments
It is seen that some government servants miss taking a screenshot of the comparative fares at the time of booking of the tickets. Such bills are struck up and there is little that the RTI Act can do to provide the historical data which is not stored.
Citation: Anjani Kumar Mishra v. IRCTC Ltd., File No: CIC/IRCTC/A/2024/109292; Date of Decision: 28.08.2025
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 certified copy of compassionate appointment order, entire application process etc. of a third-party and the same was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed of the first appeal hearing scheduled on 25.04.2024 vide letter dated 16.04.2024 but, he did not come for the hearing and has wrongly alleged in the instant second appeal that they did not allow him to appear in first appeal. The CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant and dismissed the appeal holding that no further intervention is required.
Comments
To make the RTI Act effective, both the appellant and the respondent should maintain transparency in their conduct.
Citation: D. K. Soni v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/SECFL/A/2024/117153; Date of Decision:05.12.2025.
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

Information needed for resolution of a legal dispute
Appellant sought information about Foreign Currency payment made in Indian Rupees to the amount of INR 70,000 around October 1978. The SBI informed that the information could not be retrieved being 40 years old. The appellant argued that the proof of the averred remittance to her father was crucial in the light of a property dispute pending disposal before court of law. The CIC held that the issue for consideration before it is grant of relief as per the RTI Act and does not extended to the resolution of legal disputes.
Comments
It has been argued before the CIC that information needed for dispensation of justice should be provided as the same is in public interest. It has also been contended that till the destruction memo is produced, the responsibility of maintaining the records rests with the public authority.
Citation: Rajinder Kaur Johal v. State Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/122968; Date of Decision: 07.11.2025
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