RTI Corner

The Complainant sought information regarding the details of criminal case registered against certain officers by Anti-Corruption wing of Central Bureau of Investigation. The representative of PIO regretted the exemption of Section 24 of RTI Act invoked by the PIO but went on to justify the denial under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act by claiming that although the investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed, the prosecution is still pending. The CIC admonished the representative of PIO for tendering feeble explanation without understanding the scope and ambit of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. The CIC also reprimanded the PIO to have failed to gauge his conscience regarding the clear allegation of corruption referred in the RTI Application while taking the refuge of Section 24 of RTI Act. The PIO was warned to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 of RTI Act and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies for all cases alike in future. The CIC noted that the PIO does not mention his name in the replies which further reflects on the prima-facie evasive and callous approach of the PIO in owning up to his acts of omission and commission. The PIO was directed to ensure in future that all correspondences sent under RTI Act by him should bear his name. A copy of the order was marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse remarks of the CIC and to look into the manner in which the PIO appears to be dodging request for information under the garb of Section 24 of RTI Act.
Comments
The CIC observed that the conduct of the PIO is reflective of his gross non-application of mind and irrational approach towards the letter and spirit of RTI Act. It is a wakeup call for the PIO’s to take a notice and not resort to cyclostyled replies to RTI queires.
Citation: B Bharathi v. CPIO, Head of Branch Central Bureau of Investigation in File No : CIC/CBRUI/C/2017/175974/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 appellant sought a copy of the Techno Economic Feasibility Report for two underpasses on Pune Daund railway line by box pushing technology were sought from RITES Ltd.. The PIO informed the appellant that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and disclosure may cause irreparable commercial detriment of intellectual property rights of RITES Ltd. The CIC upheld the denial of information.
Comments
The Techno Economic Feasibility Report and related documents including surveys, materials considered for preparation a conclusion of the report, structural designs, etc may lead to divestment of intellectual property rights of RITES Ltd.. Further, the documents are held by the City Corporation Ltd., Pune in fiduciary capacity. There have been frequent RTI applications seeking information about the tender document and this case law would prove handy to deal with such instances.
Citation: Makarand Narayan Joshi v. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India in Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/183447/00585, Date of Decision: 06.05.2019
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 appellant sought information regarding the elections held at Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI such as the copies of the explanations demanded by Secretary, ICAI from the returning officer while enquiring about his misbehaviour in conduction of election of Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI along with copies of the clarifications given by the returning officer. The CIC observed that an improper reply has been provided to the appellant as in the reply of the CPIO, it has been stated that “since the re-poll was held at Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI, no action in the matter was required”. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply and was cautioned to remain careful while providing replies under the RTI Act.
Comments
Not only the general elections, but the elections of other public authorities have been the subject of RTI applications. While replying to an application, the PIO must address the specific issue raised by the applicant.
Citation: Makarand Narayan Joshi v. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India in Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/183447/00585, Date of Decision: 06.05.2019
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 toRTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/