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: 21 Jun 2021
  Browse by date   All posts382
  202630
  202545
  202447
  202348
  202242
  202142
  202037
  201931
  201837
  201723

June 2021 3 posts

Clear filter
Monday, 21 June 2021

Penalty for casual and callous approach

The Complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI applications with a malafide intention. He alleged that the PIO intentionally did not provide documentary information relating to functioning of his Supervisor Officer/FAA to avoid embarrassment to him and obstructed information with malafide intention. The Complainant submitted that the FAA did not disposed of his first appeals within stipulated time and has given decisions where information sought is related to him which is in sheer violation of principal of natural justice. The CIC observed that the then PIO has been very casual in disposing of the RTI applications and previously, strict warning has been issued to him. The CIC further observed that the FAA was upholding the vague replies of the PIO by passing general orders and no directions or guidance was given by the FAA to the PIO to provide the information to the applicant. Rather the FAA has blindly approved the replies of the PIO. Further, there is a delay on the part of the FAA in disposing the first appeals of the complainant and he did not recuse or provide information in RTI matters relating to his conduct as FAA. The CIC held that the PIO is not required to give his own judgments on the issue and terming any information unnecessary is not warranted. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- u/S 20(1) of the RTI Act on the then PIO for his casual and callous approach in responding to the RTI applications.
Comments
A PIO must follow the timeline provided under the RTI Act and should not be judgmental about the queries raised by the Applicant.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint Nos. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647839, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647842, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647906 & CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647907, Date of Decision: 27-05-2021
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, 14 June 2021

Data about persons with disabilities

Information on 15 points was sought from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment such as the number of persons having Autism Spectrum Disorder, Mental illness, Multiple Disabilities etc. Information about offence committed against persons with disability and data about the against persons with disability like their Marital Status, Employment Status, Education Status was also desired. Further, the appellant sought information about steps taken to encourage employment and equal participation of the differently abled in the field of work and to promote respect, empathy and tolerance towards the differently abled. The PIO submitted the available data of persons with disabilities (PwDs) category wise and State wise was provided. He added that the process of incorporating segregated data on autism and specific learning disabilities is ongoing as a part of the UDID initiative i.e ‘Unique Disability ID’ which is being implemented with a view of creating a National Database for PwDs, and to issue a Unique Disability Identity Card to each person with disabilities. The CIC held that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ought to take certain extraordinary steps aimed at data creation entailing the aspects as pointed out by the Appellant in his RTI Application to the extent possible and to facilitate a centralised resource centre i.e the Ministry’s website for the general public. A copy of the order was marked to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to expeditiously look into the serious concerns raised by the Appellant and to take note of the advisory of the Commission.
Comments
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Act was enacted under Article 253 of Constitution of India to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The applicant has used the RTI Act successful for creating a huge database for the persons with disability.
Citation: L Muruganantham v. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in File No: CIC/DEPDD/A/2019/648066, Date of Decision: 31/05/2021
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, 7 June 2021

Only officers of the rank of PIO to attend the hearing before CIC

The appellant filed an application with the UGC and sought to know about the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in a particular session of the Jagan Nath University. The PIO, UGC transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to The Registrar Jagan Nath University, for providing information directly to the appellant. The CIC observed that the transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by PIO, UGC to Registrar Jagan Nath University mindlessly without ascertaining the status of the said University vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate. The CIC emphasized that the Appellant had sought for the information from a public authority and not from the Jagan Nath University which is very well as per the letters and spirit of the RTI Act. The PIO, UGC was directed by CIC to provide a statement indicating the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in the averred session of the University. The CIC directed the Chairman, UGC to ensure that only officers equivalent to the rank of the PIO are designated to represent the cases before the Commission in future.
Comments
In case the PIO is not able to attend the hearing before the CIC, an officer of the equivalent rank who is well versed with the issue, should be nominated to attend the hearing.
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