RTI Corner

The appellant was compulsorily retired by the Bank of India and thereafter aggrieved by the action taken, he obtained a favourable order from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The order passed by the CGIT was challenged by the Bank of India and while admitting the case, the High Court directed the bank to deposit the amount of arrears ordered by CGIT payable to the appellant with the Registrar through a nationalized bank and secure it for a period of five years. He sought information regarding employees who joined after 01.09.1977, their dates of promotions, their cadre and also their dates of Superannuation. The information was denied as being exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act. He claimed the information was needed to ascertain as to whether the junior employee(s) had been promoted and whether he was entitled for higher back wages. The CIC held that the information may be made available to him so that the administration of justice can be delivered by ascertaining as to whether some junior had been promoted in terms of Central Government Industrial Tribunal order and whether he was entitled for higher wages.
Comments
As per section 4 (1)(b) (ix), a public authority is required to suo-moto publish a directory of its officers and employees. Further, section 4 (1)(b) (x) requires the public authority to proactively disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.
Citation: Ashok Kumar M Pandya v. CPIO, Bank of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2018/609629, Date: 16.08.2019
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 a copy of the instructions issued to reply against RTI applications in Hindi or English or both from the PIO of the Department of Official Language, New Delhi. A second appeal was filed before the CIC on the ground that the response was not provided in English language. The PIO submitted that the then PIO had inadvertently replied to the appellant that information was sent in Hindi language as per extant guidelines. It was clarified that the lapse occurred because the reply sent by the erstwhile PIO was based on Rule 3 (1) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (As amended in 1987) rather than Rule 3 (2) (b) which is the relevant rule which states that Communication from a Central Government Office to any person in a State or Union Territory of Region B may be either in Hindi or in English. The PIO also submitted that the State of Maharashtra was included in the Region B as per Rule 2 (g) of the aforementioned Rules. During the hearing before CIC, the PIO prayed to condone their lapse on the ground that being the representatives of the Department of Official Language, they were encouraged and expected to promote use of Hindi language in official correspondences. The PIO also conveyed that the bilingual (Hindi-English) version of the document is also now sent by the department to the appellant. The CIC observed that the response provided by the PIO was not appropriate. However, in the absence of any malafide intention, the CIC ruled that it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the PIO. The CIC counseled the present and erstwhile PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
Comments
The RTI Act provided for disclosing the information in the form in which it is existing and available. A PIO is not required to create the information or translate it for the information seeker.
Citation: Prafulla D Khedekar v. CPIO, Department of Official Language in Second Appeal No. CIC/DPOOL/A/2018/113700, Date of decision 30.07.2019
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 had sought a copy of the report submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case at Mumbai. The appellant further sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case. The appellant emphasized that the disclosure of the information sought for would serve the purpose of larger public interest as the disclosure would ensure justice to the innocent.
The State Govt. of Maharashtra declined to provide the information to the appellant on the ground that the Anti-Terrorist Squad was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that investigation in the matter was ongoing since 15-20 accused including foreign nationals are yet to be arrested. Thus, the disclosure of information was not warranted in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) and Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act since access of information by the public including the perpetrators of the offence can prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. The CIC ruled that keeping in view the sensitivities involved in the matter as also the factual position narrated by the respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
Comments
In case of taking a decision about disclosure of investigation findings, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 would be relevant. It was held that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications and the judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other.
Citation: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166137, Date 31.07.2019.
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/