RTI Corner

Information pertaining to sanction of prosecution against the appellant by his department on CVC’s advice, was denied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that a charge sheet has been filed against him in ACB Court, Kota in August 2016, and hence, the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) will not apply in the case because the investigation has been completed. The PIO agreed to abide by the CIC’s verdict. The denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) in the matter was rejected by the CIC.
Comments
There has been a contradictory view regarding disclosure of documents relating to a vigilance inquiry after the charge sheet has been filed while the enquiry is still pending. Whenever the information is denied u/s 8(1)(h), the PIO must inform how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It is not merely a perception or an assumption, but a burden on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the process.
Citation: Manvendra Singh Raghav v. Central Vigilance Commission in File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/164901, Date of Decision: 06/07/2020.
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

Appellant was denied cashless treatment by Fortis Hospital, Mohali and he lodged lodged a complaint for taking strict action against the Hospital. However, no response was received on his Complaint. Appellant sought the present position of his complaint and action taken against Fortis Hospital for allegedly playing with the life of a Senior Citizen. The PIO, CGHS feigned ignorance of the matter during the hearing and was unable to respond to the queries raised by the Complainant as well as the CIC. The CIC cautioned the PIO over his casual and callous approach and his ill-preparedness. The CIC instructed the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the matter and fix responsibility and accountability on the delinquent officer for not responding to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, and submit its report within a period of 30 days.
Comments
There have been complaints against hospitals approved by CGHS claiming that they are not providing the facility to the patients as per norms. This case provides a possible way by which the DGHS may be forced to deal with the situation.
Citation: Mr. D. C. Gupta v. C.G.H.S. in Complaint No.:- CIC/CGHSD/C/2018/159391-BJ, Date of Decision : 13.07.2020
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

The Appellant sought information pertaining to service details of her husband, in terms of pay slip, last pay certificate etc. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, as she continues to be the wife of the individual regarding whom information has been sought. She further stated that on sl. No. 4 of the document sought in the instant RTI Application “nomination for PRIC benefit AFGIS – 224” she has not affixed her finger print and the individual has got the finger print of some unknown person affixed on the same which amounts to fraud. The CIC directed the PIO to process the RTI Application as per the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009, it was held that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted. Further, the gross pay of an officer is liable to be disclosed under section 4(1)(b)(x) suo-motu under the RTI Act.
Citation: Chidipothu Sarada v. Indian Air Force in File No: CIC/IAIRF/A/2018/154519, Date of Decision : 10/06/2020
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