RTI Corner

The appellant sought to know if the record copy of the newspapers maintained by the Registrar of Newspapers of India (RNI) was in print format or otherwise; and some other related information was also asked. The PIO informed that the details of newspapers received in RNI as per section 11(B) of PRB Act, 1867 is updated on regularity portal on RNI website and RNI does not maintain copy(s) of newspapers. The Appellant contended that the PIO has provided a false and misleading reply and quoted Rule 5 of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956. The CIC observed that the PIO has reaffirmed the factual position of not maintaining copy of newspapers and is within the confines of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that action or inaction of RNI in not maintaining the said record cannot warrant any punitive action against the PIO under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before their competent authority to look into the allegations of the Appellant in consonance with the extant rules governing RNI.
Comments
It is a classical case which demonstrates how the RTI Act can be used to initiate action against non-compliance of any act or rules. Rule 5 (1) of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956 reads that “Every publisher shall, within 48 hours of the publication of an issue of his newspaper, send to the Press Registrar one copy of the issue by post or by a messenger”. Sadly, in many cases, no copies of the newspapers are retained for future.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers of India, CIC/RNIND/A/2021/662365; 27/04/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought certain information about the enrollment number an advocate, authenticated copy of certificate of enrolment and other supporting documents, educational qualification etc. The PIO admitted that reply to the instant RTI Application was not provided, but submitted that their office has been receiving repeated RTI Applications asking for similar information about third parties, i.e personal information of other advocates and on all instances, their office has duly replied to these RTI Applications. In the instant case also, the information stands duly exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Noting that no reply was provided to the Appellant, the CIC observed that it is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIO was directed to send a proper written submission to the CIC along with supporting documents to show cause as to why no action should be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not providing any reply to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act and even thereafter.
Comments
The appellant had not claimed any larger public interest for disclosure of information which was sought. However, the PIO committed the folly of not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit and is facing a show-cause notice for his failure to do so. All PIOs must ensure timely replies to RTI applications lest they find themselves in a serious condition.
Citation: R Karanjai v. Bar Council of West Bengal, CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/134939; Date of dicsion: 03/05/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought detailed information about depreciation on import transactions, losses suffered, interest levied on buyers, insurance claim rejected, unsecured receivables, ratings, non-predetermined sales, FIR, Audit etc. The Advocates for the Respondents strongly condemned all the contentions of the Appellant contained in the Second Appeal and explained the replies provided to each point of the instant RTI Application. The CIC observed that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. The CIC held that it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the PIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. The CIC dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Rules are explicit that the word limit of 500 cannot be used to deny information to an applicant. The PIO should attempt to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and invoke relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act, if applicable.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. PEC Limited, CIC/PECLT/A/2022/624382; 27.04.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

A helicopter of IAF [Helicopter Mi - 17 V5 (ZP 5220)] was shot down by own missile on 27 Feb 19. A Court of Inquiry was conducted at Air Force Station Srinagar to investigate into the causes of the accident. The Court of Inquiry blamed the applicant for the accident and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Prior to the commencement of a General Court Martial, the applicant asked the IAF authorities to provide him with a copy of the convening order of the Court of Inquiry. When the same was denied, the applicant approached the IAF with an RTI application for the requisite information which was denied u/s 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. The applicant further stated that since the prosecution failed to present the convening order of the court of inquiry and the General Court Martial also did not peruse the same and overruled the defence plea of jurisdiction, the applicant approached the AFT (Regional Bench), Chandimandir, in OA (Appeal) 460 of 2022. Vide order dated 27.04.2022, the AFT directed the IAF to supply the order convening the court of inquiry to the applicant through his counsel. During the hearing, the PIO submitted that the said convening order was given to the appellant in compliance with the AFT’s order. The appellant further submitted that the IAF approached the HC of Punjab and Haryana and secured a vacation on the stay of the GCM, however the AFT order dated 25.05.2022 has not yet been overruled. The CIC observed that disclosure of a copy of the convening order of the court of Inquiry to the applicant is pending adjudication before the Punjab and Haryana HC as per the appellant’s own admission. Though the case is not under the RTI Act, however, the information sought is the same. Therefore, at this stage direction for any disclosure would vitiate the proceedings pending before the HC. As far as the CPIO and the FAA’s plea for denial of information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is concerned, the facts of the case suggests that the same is related to security and strategic information which cannot be disclosed and the apt exemption clause for denial has been invoked, therefore, the denial is accepted.
Comments
If the matter is already pending with the High Court, there is nothing left for the CIC to decide.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the rules regarding seniority list of MATE (SSK) (Direct recruitment) in MES and whether the same are command wise. The CIC perused the records and observed that on 29.06.2022, the appellant was informed that the information sought is not clear. However, on receipt of the CIC notice, a suitable reply was sent to the appellant. The CIC issued a strict warning to the PIO to be careful and avoid delayed and irrelevant replies.
Comments
Every PIO must adhere to the RTI Act in word and spirit. A PIO may not come across as a lenient Information Commissioner who may pardon delay with only a warning.
Citation: Parmjeet Singh v. South Western Command, Commander Works Engineering, File no.: CIC/MESER/A/2022/616435; 06/04/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com