RTI Corner

Information regarding the dates and value of debit of certain DEPB License was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act claiming that the third party had objected to the disclosure of information. The CIC referred to Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, as per which where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the PIO is expected to communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Third Party submitted that the Appellant was mis-utilizing the RTI forum to settle his personal disputes. It was further stated that the Company had many overseas clients and if the information was provided then there was a possibility of misappropriation of information for the personal benefit of the Appellant which could cause numerous litigation between the directors and overseas clients. Moreover at the time of filing the RTI application, the Appellant was a disqualified Director not holding any post in the Company. The CIC held that the mere claim of the Customs that the third party had denied the disclosure of information cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, the Delhi High Court held that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act, the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case. Hence, a PIO should be careful while passing an order and ensure that a speaking order is passed which gives due justification for denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Dipak S. Mehta v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import – II) New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCUM1/A/2018/166143-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.07.2019
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 attested copies of certain Office Memorandum through separate RTI applications. The PIO, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare, denied the disclosure of information on the ground that the information sought are not readily available in the Office of the PIO and that the OMs were incorporated in the Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Attendance Rules, which could be used as a reference book. During the hearing before the CIC, it was reiterated that in his RTI applications, the Appellant himself had made reference to the Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Attendance wherein all the notifications of the Office Memorandums were already mentioned and that they used the aforementioned compilation for their internal purposes as well. On being queried by the CIC regarding the process for record keeping / compilation of the documents sought in the RTI application at the Ministerial level through a Nodal Officer and its periodic updation with clarifications, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondents who submitted that being very old records several OMs/ Notifications were not available at this distant date. The CIC felt that there was an urgent need to develop a robust system of record keeping in the Respondent Public Authority and to review its efficaciousness periodically. The CIC further noted that the position of Nodal Officer in a Public Authority is created in order to ensure timely and precise response on the RTI applications where information is scattered and multiple Divisions / Departments are involved. It was felt that there was lack of coordination between Public Authority Officials present during the hearing on the issue of custodian of information which ultimately impedes the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC also referred to the OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14.11.2007 wherein while prescribing for creation of a nodal authority for dealing with RTI applications. In the larger public interest, the CIC advised the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to appoint a Nodal Officer for the compilation and collation of all available OMs / Notifications issued in the form of a compendium for ready reference of all concerned and to facilitate expeditious reply to the RTI application.
Comments
OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14.11.2007 calls upon all the public authorities with more than one PIO to create a central point within the organisation where all the RTI applications and the appeals addressed to the First Appellate Authorities may be received. It would aid in quick disposal of the RTI applications.
Citation: Mr. Pradeep Kumar v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623283-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623300-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623306-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623311-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623315-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/624303-BJ, Date of Decision : 05.07.2019
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 documents relating to SEBI giving permission or objecting to NSE’s decision to allow RPL shares to be listed in the forward section of the market for the speculation at the time of listing of the IPO of RPL when the company was years away from commercial production and related information. The PIO provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA who concurred with the reply of the PIO. While seeking a copy of the written submissions made by SEBI to CIC, the Appellant prayed to either allow him to file his rejoinder against the same or discard the submissions made by the Respondent. The CIC advised the Respondent to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well. It was further advised that all such submissions placed before the Commission should invariably be endorsed to the Appellant beforehand for his ready reference unless otherwise notified as “Confidential”.
Comments
Though the RTI Act does not explicitly provide for giving to the appellant, the copies of the submission made by the respondent to the CIC, it is a common practice followed in all judicial forums. It would reduce the time needed by the appellant to respond to the submissions and thereby lead to early closure of the case.
Citation: Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Securities & Exchange Board of India in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SEBIE/A/2018/102201-BJ, Date of Decision: 31.05.2019
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/