RTI Corner

The appellant sought Promotional correspondence records and concerned certified copies claiming that issue stands clarified by DoPT under OM No 36012/12/2013-Estt (Res) dated 24th July 2020. The CIC noted that the Appellant sought inspection of all records and correspondence relating to his promotion and certain clarifications regarding the Rules and Procedures followed by the Respondent organization, including details concerning DoPT OMs. The PIO informed the Appellant that inspection of all relevant files had already been offered to him in the past and, pursuant to the directions of the CIC in an earlier matter, he had in fact inspected the files on 18.10.2023, whereafter certified copies were also provided to him. With respect to the remaining queries, the PIO clarified that the information sought was vague and appeared to require interpretation or clarification of rules, which does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that several of the queries raised in the RTI application seek interpretation of Rules and reasons for administrative decisions, which is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act. The CIC further noted that the Appellant has remained absent during the hearing and has continued to file repetitive RTI applications relating to his service grievance, which cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC also noted that the promotional issue underlying these RTI applications now stands resolved as the Appellant has already been promoted and has assumed charge.
Comments
The RTI Act defines “information” under Section 2(f) and the seeking clarification is not covered under the provisions of the Act. However, with ingenuity, the RTI Act can be used to nudge the public authority to perform certain actions.
Citation:C M Nimje v. Central Water and Power Research Station; File No: CIC/CWPRS/A/2024/625204; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
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 the details of employees appointed under the Reserved Quota in the Assistant Grade-III cadre in the Food Corporation of India in a specific proforma. The PIO replied that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and denied the information. Before the CIC, the Respondent submitted that the appellant sought information about SC/ST/OBC employees in Assistant Grade III Cadre from 2021 to 2024 along with their verified caste certificates in a tabular format given by him. The respondent submitted that there are around 6000 employees in their department and the compilation of the sought information in desired format would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence, the aforesaid information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the respondent additionally pleaded that the caste certificates of the employees are exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On query by CIC whether the respondent confirms for placing on record his plea for exemption U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the same was not earlier mentioned in reply of the CPIO, the respondent confirmed. The CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant. The CIC held that the respondent has pleaded additional grounds that the sought information is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act during the hearing, and the same is also found to be appropriate. The CIC rejected the appeal.
Comments
Additional grounds which were not considered earlier can be asserted during the hearing before the CIC. Even the grounds for rejection of the information can be changed withdrawing the earlier clause and replacing it by a new one.
Citation:Yashwant Rao Hedau v. Food Corporation of India, File No: CIC/FCIND/A/2024/640832; Date of Decision: 23.01.2026
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 the date of the receipt of a particular Comprehensive Report and the action taken on it, specifically if any orders were passed based on the Comprehensive Report. The appellant also sought to the specific sections under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or under Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957, under which the copies of the Minutes of Meeting nominating the list of Office Bearers as "Protected workman" for the year, 2023-24, were sought form the Union. The CIC observed that the PIO has furnished adequate and appropriate replies within the framework of the RTI Act and upon the direction of the FAA, additional information was furnished. The CIC noted that an identical issue was disposed by the Bench in File No. CIC/UTPON/C/2023/145647 on 23.03.2024. The CIC held that there is no ground to re-adjudicate a matter that has already been duly decided and where all available information has already been furnished to the Appellant.
Comments
The CIC does not have the power to review its own order. It would be wastage of the time of the CIC to reach out with the same matter repeatedly as it may not yield any different result.
Citation: K Lakshminarayanan v. Labour Commissioner, File No: CIC/ARWNG/A/2024/119756/CSRTI; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
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

A member of the Delhi Niwas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi sought information regarding financial irregularities in the Society's accounts. The CIC reminded the Complainant that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment.
Comments
Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase that means "hear the other side" and refers to the legal principle that no person should be judged or have a decision made against them without a fair hearing. It has been seen that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority tries proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply to the Appellants before the date of hearing. The result is a faster delivery of information, reducing the time, energy and efforts of the CIC in an early disposal. Thus, it is the interest of the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
Citation: Subhash Chander Banga v. Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/612685; 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 appellant sought certified copies of registration documents pertaining to Dev Prabhat Samachar Hindi newspaper. His application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to Office of Press Registrar General of India. The respondent claimed that information was denied U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 04.07.2024. The CIC enquired about the mode by which the reply dated 04.07.2024 was sent to the complainant. The respondent submitted that the reply was uploaded on website but could not corroborate their submission. The respondent could not confirm whether they had sent the letter dated 04.07.2024 to the complainant by post within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the then PIO Mr. Suresh Kumar, as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him for not providing reply to the complainant within stipulated time limit.
Comments
Every PIO must reply to the RTI Application as per the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act, and keep the proof of reply.
Citation: Shravan Mishra v. Office of the Press Registrar General of India, File No: CIC/MOIAB/C/2024/127395; Date of Interim Decision: 23-01-2026