RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University about a college. The PIO submitted that the said college has been disaffiliated in the year 2015. The CIC interjected and remarked that the Appellant is seeking information of the averred college prior to the year 2015 in the instant RTI Application. The CIC ruled that the information pertains to the rules related to the fee structure of different courses of the averred college prior to the year 2015 and denying the same under the garb of third party information is completely unwarranted and admonished the Respondent for the same. The CIC directed the Respondent to provide a relevant, categorical and point-wise revised reply to the Appellant.
Comments
If an organisation ceases to be a public authority on a particular date, the information for the prior period can still be sought under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: G R Nautiyal v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Second Appeal No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2021/107261, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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

A timely reply had not been provided by the University to the applicant, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A show - cause notice was issued by the CIC for imposition of penalty. The CIC observed that the RTI Application is addressed to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra (formerly known as Agra University), which is a State University under the control of the State Government, and dropped the proceedings.
Comments
Section 20 of the RTI Act reads, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that …” which implies that the jurisdiction of the CIC is limited to the central public authorities. Hence, a second appeal against the state government public authorities cannot be filed to the CIC.
Citation: Kaushal Agarwal v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra in Complaint No. CIC/BBAUV/C/2017/178310, Date of decision: 08.07.2022.
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

One of the Applicants for the post of Associate Professor who was not selected by the committee sought the copy of the minutes of the selection committee. The Respondent submitted that details of other candidates along with the name of the members of the averred selection committee is there in the minutes of the selection committee which is personal information of third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon being queried by the CIC to establish the larger public interest while seeking such sort of information, the appellant could not provide a cogent reply. The CIC observed that adequate reply has been given by the Respondent and upheld the same. The CIC further observed that the Appellant has made use of such intemperate and defaming words such as ‘you are biased’ while communicating with the CIC which were viewed adversely. The Appellant was cautioned to be careful and mindful while choosing his words.
Comments
An appellant should refrain from making baseless allegations and instead focus on seeking information. The appeal should be drafted professionally and baced on facts rather than emotions.
Citation: Hari Baksh v. Central University of Tamil Nadu in Second Appeal No. CIC/CUOTN/A/2021/108486, Date of Decision: 16.06.2022
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

9 pages of information was provided in response to a request for mark sheets of a third party and related information. On perusal of the contents of the case, the CIC observed that the Respondent has wrongly provided third party information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, to the Appellant. The CIC held that such lackadaisical conduct of the Respondent is not in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC strictly admonished the concerned Respondent, for providing the same to the Appellant, without application of mind and sternly cautioned them to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be well versed with the provisions of the RTI Act to comply with the duties enshrined under the Act. The third-party can claim damages for the loss of personal information.
Citation: Jitendra Bhatt v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwadidyalaya, Sagar in Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2021/104888, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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