RTI Corner

The appellant sought for information under section 7(1) in Hindi and submitted that he has not received the information. The PIO submitted that the fees charged from the candidates are decided by the governing body of their organisation. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the CIC. The CIC directed the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post.
Comments
The Fee charged should not be arbitrary lest it taken as a mode of denial of information
Citation: Abhinav Prakash v. National Testing Agency, Department of Higher Education (Ministry of Education), CIC/NTAGN/A/2022/630133; Date of Decision: 30.05.2023
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

Vide order dated 20.08.2022, the CIC had directed the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide the action taken report within four weeks. A complaint was filed for non-compliance of CIC order. In reply to the notice, the PIO stated that they had furnished the information available with them. It came to their notice that the matter was under investigation by Police Authorities and information sought by RTI application was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, the CIC observed that the PIO had failed to bring the above facts to the notice of the CIC for arriving at a proper decision during hearing. The CIC expressed its displeasure at the lackadaisical attitude of the PIO. However, since the PIO had provided available information and stated that the matter was under investigation by Police Authorities, the PIO was directed to submit their assertions on affidavit before the CIC.
Comments
The PIO should have a thorough understanding of the provisions of the RTI Act and also the facts of the case failing which an error might be committed. In this case, the PIO initially failed to provide the information, then could not defend it before the CIC, subsequently failed to follow the order of the CIC and later provided the information but claimed before the CIC that it was exempt. Indicates really poor grasp of the role to be played by the PIO.
Citation: Shri Harshit Goel v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK /A/2020/671310; 18.05.2023
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

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the CIC after approaching the FAA. The CIC observed that in many cases in response to queries about their non-response to RTI applications, the PIOs concerned say that they have no access to the online RTI portal. Hence, the outgoing PIO must inform the new incumbent PIO about the user id and password of the department online RTI portal. Moreover, the PIOs also complain about the malfunctioning of the portal. Hence, under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the CIC advised the PIO, Headquarter Delhi Jal Board, to oversee that proper training for the handling of RTI matters including access to online RTI portal and about its proper functioning is ensured to the CPIOs and others connected with the RTI implementation in the department. The CIC held that it is a matter of extreme importance for the implementation of the RTI Law.
Comments
It is the responsibility of the outgoing PIO to land over the charge of the pending cases and also user id and password of the department online RTI portal. If the same has not been done, appropriate action must be initiated against the culprit.
Citation: Mr. Avnish Kumar Tyagi v. Delhi Jal Board, CIC/DELJB/A/2022/656815-UM; Date of Decision: 22.05.2023
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 appeared in a promotion test and sought the Online test marks, Interview marks, APAR marks, Group discussion marks, Total marks obtained and Minimum cut off marks for selection. The respondent informed that online test marks, and APAR marks were already informed to the individual. Further, at the time of promotion process, the complainant was charge-sheeted and as per the rules, some of the details like interview test marks, group discussion marks and total marks obtained by the complainant was kept in sealed cover. It was further submitted that since, the complainant was punished, so sealed cover was not opened. They informed that in the sealed cover process, if the applicant/charge sheeted employee exonerated, then only sealed cover was opened and given to him. While hearing the complaint, the CIC observed that point-wise reply was given by the respondent. The respondent while exercising their wisdom denied some information and that being so no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them and accordingly, the complaint was rejected.
Comments
The CIC has upheld the denial of information without mentioning the provision of the RTI Act under which the denial was justified. If the investigation was likely to be impeded by the disclosure of information, the same should have been specifically emphasized by the Commission.
Citation: Pramod Kumar Thakur v. Indian Overseas Bank, CIC/IOVBK/C/2021/140197; 17.05.2023
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