RTI Corner

Information regarding a copy of the affidavit submitted by appellant’s wife Mrs Bhavya Sharma to the sanctioning authority for grant of maintenance allowance was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant contended that the exemption claimed by the PIO is not proper as he was seeking information about his wife so as to know if the contents of the affidavit filed by her for grant of maintenance allowance are correct or not. The CIC held that even if there is a husband- wife relationship between the appellant and the third person regarding whom he is seeking the information but under the RTI Act, a husband is considered as a third party to his wife and the same applies vice-versa. Unless and until there is an involvement of larger public interest in disclosure of the information, no relief can be given in such cases.
Comments
Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act defines ‘third party’ as a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. The definition of a third party is vast and everyone other than the applicant is covered under it. A relationship does not entitle an individual to overlook the privacy of the third party.
Citation: Manish Kumar v. Headquarters Northern Command in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/138225, Date of Decision: 02/06/2021
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

The applicant sought copies of all performance reviews carried out from December 2012 onwards till Mar 2014, including all performance reviews from any officer, which are taken into account for processing of the appraisal reports. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1) ( e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The applicant contended that the respondents are likely to deny this information under the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt vs Union of India, but the same is not applicable as the applicant is not asking for the Appraisal report but the copies of the Performance Review (that the applicant is privy to but does not have any copy of the same). The CIC directed that the performance review from Dec. 2012 -March 2014 should be provided to the applicant under the RTI even if not generally given, as he is already privy to the same. The copy of his own disagreement note should also be given.
Comments
The order of the CIC opens the gates for disclosure of the performance reviews in case of the defence forces.
Citation: Kunal Kumra v. Directorate of Personal Services, Air Head Quarters in File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/134503, Date of Decision: 08.07.2021
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

Different financial organisations approached the CIC separately seeking stay of the order of the PIO of RBI claiming that disclosure would cause irreparable loss and injury to their institution while no prejudice would be caused to the RTI applicant. In terms of the prayer, the CIC admitted the second appeal and keeping in view of the urgency, the operation of the PIO’s reply and FAA’s order was stayed till further orders. The CIC directed that the matter may be posted for hearing as soon as possible.
Comments
The Supreme Court has already deliberated upon the issue in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and has directed that such information is liable to be disclosed. Hence, the interim order of the CIC restraining the CPIO from releasing the information appears to be without merit. On 02.07.2021, the Supreme Court refused the prayers made by Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India to stay the RTI notices issued to them by the Reserve Bank of India.
Citation: Experian Credit Information Company Pvt. Limited & Anr. V. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/615945 with similar order in: Babaji Datey Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/109972; Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited & Anr. v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/611795; Jain Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr. v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/110465, Date of Decision: 01.06.2021
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