RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information regarding enlistment of contractors in MES, retention period of related records, transfer of records after expiry of retention period, receipt of his application dated 18.09.2023, as well as queries regarding contractors’ bills and refund of fees. The PIO stated that information had already been forwarded under earlier letters, and that relevant files were not traceable as they were 35 years old. He also stated that as per the Accounts Officer, GE (West) Lucknow, the retention period of contractors’ bills was 10 years. The CIC observed that the reply furnished by the PIO is incomplete and evasive. Simply stating that retention is “10 years” without providing the authenticated Record Retention Schedule is inadequate under the RTI framework. Despite service of notice, the PIO failed to appear before the CIC which was viewed seriously as it reflects disregard towards the proceedings of the CIC. The CIC directed the Respondent to provide a copy of their records retention schedule to the Appellant free of cost within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the CIC cautioned the PIO to remain vigilant in future and ensure timely attendance before the CIC as well as proper discharge of duties mandated under the RTI Act, failing which penal action can be initiated against him/her.
Comments
Every department should retain a copy of the destruction memo in accordance with the Record Retention Schedule. It would be handy to show that the documents have actually been destroyed as per the prescribed guidelines.
Citation: Sunil Kumar v. Garrison Engineer (West) Military Engineer Services, File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/109476; Date of Decision: 08.09.2025
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 from the Directorate of Education about the pay scale PGT teachers working with Universal Public School such as whether there is Pay parity with Government school teachers, percentage of Basic Pay paid as DA etc. During the hearing before the CIC, the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that the documents provided to him are not attested or certified by the PIO. The CIC directed the Directorate of Education to provide certified copies of relevant documents free of charge to the Appellant.
Comments
A citizen can seek information about a private organization from the public authority which holds the information. The certified copy of the document can be used as evidence in a court of law.
Citation: Khagesh Chandra Joshi v. Directorate of Education in File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/108070; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
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 respondent submitted that the appellant has filed multiple queries seeking confirmation/ implementation of provisions under Central Acts. The RTI applications were timely disposed of and although the queries did not conform to the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, necessary clarification was provided with reference to extant guidelines and OMs in response to few of the RTI applications. The CIC observed that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO in all the second appeals, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that the RTI requests of the appellant do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the appellant had sought for answers/clarifications to speculative and hypothetical queries. Further, the CIC pointed to the appellant that as per the mandate of the RTI Act, outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. The Commission observed that 86 second appeals were disposed earlier arising out of RTI applications filed by the appellant before several public authorities wherein similar speculative and hypothetical queries were raised, calling for no relief under the Act. In addition, 18 appeals were disposed of in CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658048 & Ors, vide decision dated 25.07.2025. It is appalling that despite having scheduled multiple appeals for hearing with advance notice, the appellant failed to appear before the Commission, which has caused unwarranted loss of time and public resources. The CIC advised the Appellant to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed henceforth. The CIC held that the Respondent(s) are also at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future.
Comments
Repeated filing of RTI applications on identical issues causes a drain on the resources of the public authority. The observation by the CIC held that the Respondent(s) are at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future could provide relief to the DARPG.
Citation: Rajnish Ratnakar v. Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, econd Appeal No. CIC/DARPG/A/2024/ 658235 + 651529 + 651501 + 651490 + 651477 + 650798 + 650846 + 650819; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
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