RTI Corner

Request for inspection of personal file of Prof. Saba Beg was rejected under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act holding it as third-party information. The CIC observed that no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. The CIC referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in CA No. 10044/2010, 10045/2010 and 2683/2010 and upheld the denial of information.
Comments
In the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of “personal information” which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied.
Citation: Prof. Riyazuddeen v. Aligarh Muslim University, CIC/ALMUV/A/2022/668536; Date of Decision: 30.06.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information regarding alleged bogus and inflated bills submitted by one person at Mumbai CAT was not provided. The CIC issued a show cause notice for imposing penalty which could not be heard due to Covid pandemic. The PIO informed that the dealing hand who was in-charge of taking out e-mail pertaining to the online RTI Applications of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, was deployed on Contract basis. He left the office of Mumbai without any notice and also without giving the password of the mail website. As a result, the office was facing difficulty in taking out the Online RTI Applications. There was no intention on his part to withhold the information to be furnished under the RTI Act by any applicant approaching the CAT, Mumbai Bench. By the time the new Assistant Computer official joined the office in the month, the PIO had been transferred to Kolkata. As a result, he could not reply to the RTI Applications sent on website. The CIC accepted the explanation and observed that notwithstanding the lack of malafide, the PIO is expected to exercise due caution and pro-activeness in matters dealt with under the RTI Act in the future.
Comments
Access to password should not be limited to one individual, specially a contractual person, lest such a situation erupts. Further, a new password can always be retrieved rather than leaving the matter as such.
Citation: T C Gupta v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, CIC/CADMT/C/2019/130141; 01/04/2021
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information relating to MBA, MBA-BA, MBA-HR programs in CAT form at IIM, Amritsar. He stated that he has only sought cut off marks and general information which should be available in public domain and requested that the IIM Amritsar be directed to furnish the information as sought. The IIM Amritsar informed that the Appellant had not furnished proof of his citizenship earlier and information sought at point No. 1 of the RTI Application was duly furnished to the Appellant. The information sought at point No. 2 to 9 is voluminous in nature and collection of data would result in diversion of public funds. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply with respect to point No. 2 to 9 to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, making sure that the information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed.
Comments
The proof of his citizenship should not be sought under there is some strong reason to suspect that the appellant is not an Indian citizen.
Citation: Ronit Rajesh Gaikwad v. Indian Institute of Management-Amritsar, CIC/IIMAS/A/2022/627227; Date of Decision: 05.06.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Appellant submitted that his First Appeal has not been decided till date and requested for directions to the CPIO and FAA to furnish the information as sought. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant. He further stated that the Appellant has been terminated from service. Upon being queried whether any enquiry is pending relating to which information has been sought in the instant RTI Application, the PIO replied in negative. The CIC observed that it will be just and reasonable that a fair hearing be conducted by the First Appellate Authority in the instant matter and remanded back to the First Appellate Authority.
Comments
Wherever the appellant makes a request, the First Appellate Authority should offer a personal hearing before disposing the appeal.
Citation: Dr. Himal Chand v. Centre for Research in Rural & Industrial Development, CIC/ICSSR/A/2022/131473; 06.07.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr in LPA No. 734/2018 dated 22.03.2022), the appellant sought certain information from CBI. It was claimed that the service related matter is covered under the purview of corruption and human rights violation and as such the information should be supplied by the CBI which is listed in Schedule II. The CIC referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 against admission hearing for SLP Diary No. 5557/2023 filed by the Union of India against the Delhi High Court judgment. The Supreme Court did not approve the reasoning given by the High Court and kept the question of law open while not entertaining the SLP.
Comments
The question whether Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act can be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights has been raised often. Should a violation of human rights be considered in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc has been queried. The Apex Court has preferred not to answer the query immediately whether the expression be extended to include controversies relating to service matters and grievances in respect of the disciplinary proceedings.
Citation: Cyril C George v. ACB Cochin, Office of the Supdt. of Police, CBI, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/148116; Date of Decision: 01/06/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com