RTI Corner

An application was filed under the RTI Act before PIO, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior seeking information about how many containers were declared as inferior, which were tested by Govt. opium and Alkaloid factory Ghazipur and Neemuch. The applicant also sought information about the analytical particulars of each inferior container in the first test and second test. An appeal was filed to the CIC stating that the complete information of all the divisions has not provided. The respondent submitted that the information sought pertains to 17 different divisions having individual PIOs and is not available in a compiled form at a single point in the manner sought by the appellant. Nonetheless, they have furnished him some information after an arduous task of compilation. The CIC observed that the information sought by the appellant pertains to 17 different divisions having separate PIOs and therefore, it is very wide and general in nature which requires compilation from extensive records of each division. The PIO could not be asked to compile such data.
Comments
Under the RTI Act, the PIO is expected to provide the information which is available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it, unless he is required to maintain it as per law.
Citation: Onkar Lal Jat v. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Second Appeal No. CIC/MOFIN/A/2018/134718/DOREV, Date: 03-07-2020
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 about rotational Transfer of Assistant Engineers (QA) of Ammunition Discipline in the year 2017 and 2018 and correspondence made. The PIO referred to Section 8(2) of RTI Act to deny the information quoting the Official Secrets Act. The CIC held that the PIO has erred in interpreting Section 8(2) of RTI Act and directed the PIO to ensure that he acquaints himself well with the provisions of RTI Act.
Comments
According to Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with section 8(1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Thus, section 8(2) is a non-obstante clause which seeks to override the inconsistent provisions contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which is further evinced from Section 22 of RTI Act. Section 22 says that the provisions of RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force.
Citation: Pradeep Gajanan Errum v. Ministry of Defence (DGQA) in File No: CIC/DGOQA/A/2018/634294, Date of Decision: 23/07/2020
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 regarding a recruitment rally conducted by the Punjab Regimental Centre, Ramgarh Cantt. Jharkhand from the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh. The Appellant was aggrieved with the fact that the Respondent office did not transfer the RTI Application to the concerned public authority and that CPIO replied on the RTI Application only after expiry of the 30 day time period and two days after First Appeal was filed, and that too for returning the RTI Application. The CIC observed that by his own admission, the Appellant was aware that the information sought pertained to Punjab Regimental Centre, yet he filed the RTI Application with a completely unrelated public authority i.e the Respondent office, Cantonment Board, Ramgarh. The CIC did not find any scope for intervention in the reply of the PIO reply and condoned the delay in replying on the RTI Application while disposing the appeal.
Comments
Section 6(1)(a) of RTI Act provides that the RTI Application should be filed to the concerned public authority. The act put an onus on the applicant to file the application to the concerned authority if he knows who is holding the information. An applicant should not file an application to anyone expecting that he would find the right public authority and would transfer the RTI Application to the relevant public authority under section 6(3).
Citation: Rahul Kumar v. Cantonment Board in File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/163631, Date of Decision: 22/07/2020
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