Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Live
“
“
Right to Information

RTI Corner

Key RTI rulings, CIC decisions and what they mean for citizens — archived by date.

0 posts 0 months Latest: 25 Apr 2022
  Browse by date   All posts382
  202630
  202545
  202447
  202348
  202242
  202142
  202037
  201931
  201837
  201723

April 2022 4 posts

Clear filter
Monday, 25 April 2022

Printout of information available on the website

The appellant has sought information about the competent authority responsible to take action on the alleged irregularities and misuse of funds. The appellant was guided to the website where information is available. The CIC observed that the PIO could not provide the hyperlink where the information is available. The appellant categorically denied the availability of information on the website. The CIC observed that there is no mechanism to check the availability without the PIO’s assistance and directed that the information available on the website can be printed and given to the appellant in the interest of transparency.
Comments
In most cases where the information is available on the website of the organisation, the PIO is not supposed to take a printout and provide it to the applicant. The PIO should provide the specific link of the page rather than giving a vague reply that the information is available on the website of the organisation.
Citation: T Retna Pandian v. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology in File no.: CIC/DBTEC/A/2020/133004, Date of Decision: 31/03/2022
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
Monday, 18 April 2022

Is LIC Housing Finance Ltd. a public authority?

The complainant submitted that the requested information has not been provided to him by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The respondent submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay vide Writ Petition No. 2327/ 2009 has already granted stay on applicability of RTI Act to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. vide order dated 18.01.2010 and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. The CIC disposed off the complaint..
Comments
A simple issue such as whether or not the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. is a public authority, has been pending before the Hon’ble High Court for more than 12 years. Such inordinate delays would shake the faith of the people in the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Mr. B P Thirupalu v. LIC Housing Finance Limited in Complaint No. CIC/LICOI/C/2020/678378, Date of order: 08-04-202
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
Monday, 11 April 2022

Misplaced correspondence between CAG and NMC

Certified copies of communication made by the erstwhile MCI with the office of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the response of CAG regarding the internal audit were sought. The CIC observed that initially no reply was provided by then PIO, National Medical Commission. In view of the same, CIC expressed severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. The CIC directed the then PIO to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. Further, the CIC directed the present PIO to search the relevant records sought thoroughly and provide the relevant information to the appellant, free of cost, within 15 days. In the event the relevant records are not traced, the PIO must affix the responsibility of an individual responsible for maintenance of records under whose supervision said records are lost and lodge an FIR in lieu of the missing records so that proper investigation can be conducted.
Comments
In many cases where the public records are misplaced, the CIC has directed to file an FIR and fix the responsibility.
Citation: Anupam Dhua v. National Medical Commission in Second Appeal No.: CIC/NMCOM/A/2021/661367, Date of Decision: 31.03.2022
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
Monday, 4 April 2022

Filing a complaint after a decade

The Complainant filed four RTI applications in 2020 seeking certain information from the NHAI. Having not received any response from the PIO in response to each of the RTI Applications, the complainant filed the instant set of complaints with the CIC. To a query from the CIC regarding the inordinate delay in filing of instant Complaints, the Complainant stated that he was preoccupied with medical treatment from Kolkata which led to such delay in filing of the complaints. He further stated that it is the prerogative of the CIC to take cognizance of the matter or not. The PIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions dated 29.03.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that timely point wise response against all the averred RTI Applications has already been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.06.2010. The CIC observed that neither in his complaints nor during the hearing, the complainant has mentioned any reasonable grounds for such inordinate delay in filing of the Complaints in the year 2021 i.e. after a decade or so. The CIC found no scope of action in the matter.
Comments
As per the legal maxim i.e. ”Vigilantibus Non Dormientbus Jura Subveniunt”, the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. A complainant should remain watchful and use his rights judiciously.
Citation: S N Jha v. National Highway Authority of India in File No : CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109298 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109655 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109338 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109309, Date of Decision: 31/03/2022
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