RTI Corner

I hope that he uses foreign experience effectively. Banks losing deposits is a concern. He has to keep eyes on NPA, Jandhan a/c holders, privatisation of Insurance Cos./Banks, banks net profit or NIM, unproductive ATMs, Public Grievances, Banks merger, NBFCs UCBs and others, RR Banks sponsored by Banks, coordinate with Cooperative Ministry on Banks, digitalization, misselling of insurance products, governance in Banks and keeping them world class, Banks following national and global norms, health insurance expansion and checking exploitation, empower top leaderships in financial sectors, more NRI PIO investors.
Srinivasan Shankar
RTI
Sir, You may continue to write good things about RTI but the painful emerging fact is that the political class and bureaucracy have taken all possible steps to remove the sting out of the Act. Without any effective deterrence, accountability cannot be enforced especially in an opaque system like ours. It is not to say that there is no impact of the RTI Act, but the positive impact is minimal. Pro-active disclosure is very little and the departments continue to work at a slow pace.
Kushagra Kumar

The appellant sought to know the number of times Dr C Balasubramanian MS (ENT), Professor cum HOD, Dept of ENT, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital was invited for conducting MS / DNB in Otorhinolaryngology postgraduate exams in all of the medical colleges affiliated under Pondicherry University during the academic year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appellant alleged that there is an unwarranted and unethical practice of taking money for passing the candidates in PG clinical exams by the examiner is a clear violation of P.G. Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that irrespective of the fact that the Appellant has only sought for number of times the examiner was invited, the same cannot be provided in view of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, particularly in the backdrop of the Appellant’s allegation claiming several malpractices on the part of the averred third party in the preface to the RTI query. The CIC held that even though it is not disputed that the Appellant has only sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner for conducting MS / DNB in Otorhinolaryngology postgraduate exams, but being a service matter of that third party, exempt u/s 8(1)(j). The CIC further held that Section 8(1)(g) is also appropriate in view of allegations levelled by the Appellant.
Comment
The denial of information under section 8(1)(j) is strange as the number of times a person has joined as examiner on official duty can hardly be called as personal information of either the individual or the university. The applicability of 8(1)(g) is stranger as no harm to the physical safety can be alleged on the wildest stretch of imagination.
Citation: Er Sureshkumar Jeyakumar v. Pondicherry University, CIC/PONDU/A/2023/101007; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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

Brief Information about locker agreement and other related information was sought from PNB in Hindi. The applicant submitted that the reply furnished by the PIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. When enquired by the CIC as to whether a copy of agreement of locker is available in Hindi language or not, the PIO submitted that the copy of agreement is in English only, however, whenever required, they explain the agreement to the party concerned in Hindi also. The CIC observed that the appellant has sought a copy of the locker agreement in Hindi language but the same could not be provided by the respondent as the agreement is available in English language. The CIC noted that the respondent Bank is in a customer facing department and for the convenience of the general public, a copy of the agreement should be available in English as well as in Hindi language. Therefore, the Commission directed to furnish a translated copy of the agreement to the appellant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
Comments
Ordinarily the information is provided in the form in which it exists which implies that no changes or translation is needed. However, in specific cases, the public authority may be required to translate the documents and provide it to the citizens.
Citation: Awadh Bihari Gupta v. Punjab National Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/115245; Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
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 stated that he has not received any information on the RTI Application dated 13.08.2022 filed with the UCO Bank. Before the CIC, the PIO referred to an earlier CIC Order dated 21.12.2023 regarding the same appellant, where it was directed that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the instant application by the appellant may be listed together for hearing and a common order to be passed in all the matters. The PIO referred to the notice dated 04.04.2024 with regards to the instant RTI application for appearing before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner. The PIO submitted that the subject complainant/Appellant is same to the Complainant in the earlier notice. Therefore, the queries which were sought earlier and replies given may be treated as replies to the instant notice. The CIC was baffled at the sheer complacency of the Respondent in coming across as being absolutely alien to the concept of the RTI Act or its mandate as it was being naively suggested that their sole reply of 21.12.2023 suffices all the past, present and future RTI Applications of the Appellant and that the Commission ought not to call upon the Respondent office for hearing any matters in the aftermath of the order dated 21.12.2023. The CIC noted that even the FAA has not bothered to decide the instant First Appeal till date, which is also a grave violation of the statutory duty cast upon the FAA by virtue of the RTI Act. The CIC was aghast at the conduct and the submissions of the PIO and directed the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application. The CIC instructed that the inaction on the instant First Appeal shall also be duly explained by the FAA.In the event that the FAA fails to comply with the said direction, the CIC will be constrained to deem the FAA as the CPIO in the instant matter for proceeding with action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Comments
Though there is express provision for action against the PIO for not following the provisions of the RTI Act, there is little that can be done against the FAA. This is one case where the CIC has resorted to a deeming provision and threatened to use it against the FAA.
Citation: Alom Hussain v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/100779; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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 sought certain information about inquiry report about Ganeswar Behera which was denied under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming that the required information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. During the hearing before CIC, the Appellant submitted that she had sought information related to her husband but no information was provided to her. Ganeswar Behera was present in the hearing along with the Appellant and upon being queried by the CIC, he gave his ‘no objection’ to the Public Authority if the information related to him is parted with the Appellant. The CIC found no infirmity in the initial reply of the PIO, as the Appellant in her RTI application and first appeal has nowhere mentioned that the information sought is related to her husband and Ganeswar Behera has no objection in parting his information to her. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI application and give information to the Appellant as per the documents available on record.
Comments
An individual should ideally file an application himself/ herself rather than asking the spouse to file an application. In case the latter is resorted to, a no objection certificate should be attached along with the initial RTI application.
Citation: Rosalini Behera v. East Coast Railway, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/107864; Date of Decision : 12-04-2024
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