RTI Corner

The appellant sought information about the date, month, year and time on which a particular order was passed, uploaded and further related information. Regarding the contention of the Appellant that information as furnished by the PIO is not a certified copy and same is without rounded seal & stamp in violation of the guidelines mentioned in OM No.10/1/2O13- IR dated 06.10.2015, the CIC observed that the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply which is duly signed by the PIO and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of FAA. The aforementioned essential details have been duly provided by the PIO in their reply and the OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015 does not require that the certified copy of the reply with a rounded seal should be provided to the RTI Applicant. In the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought certified copy of the document only at point No. 3 of the RTI Application in response to which it has been clearly mentioned by the PIO that no such document exists in their record. The CIC upheld the reply provided by the PIO.
Comments
If “certified” copies of certain documents are sought by the applicant, the PIO should be careful as such documents might be presented to a court of law as evidence.
Citation: Ms. Neha Chawla v. Supreme Court of India, CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/117161; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought data on customer satisfaction ratings for SBI services from its inception and other information. The PIO replied that the information is not compiled centrally in the ordinary course of business and not readily available in the material form. The collection of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Before the CIC, the respondent clarified that data sought vide the RTI application is not available in the desired format. The CIC held that in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, there is scope of intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal. The CIC brought it to the notice of the respondent that in a series of matters filed by the appellant against a different public authority i.e IDPL, in file nos. CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/612395 and CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/604666, an order was passed to veracity of the appellant’s BPL status. The respondent was advised to exercise due caution with respect to the future RTI application received from the appellant relying on his Below Poverty Line (BPL) status.
Comments
Some unscrupulous elements indulge in misuse of the RTI Act by making a false claim of BPL to obtain information without paying any fee. The Public Authority should train its PIO's to detect such individuals and deal with them in accordance with law.
Citation: Rachhpal Singh Saini v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2024/602064; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information about implementation of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi asking for the pay fixed, Date of enhancement of the rate of pay and other related information about fellow officers. The PIO denied information under Sec 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act informing that the information sought is a classified information which also include personal information of third party and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity ог interest. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the Hon’ble CAT, vide order dated 31.05.2023 has passed an order in his favour in which the Respondent were directed to extend the similar benefits as granted to the Applicants in O.A. No. 1981/1996, in term of the directions contained in order dated 03.06.2002, if they are similarly situated and otherwise eligible and that is why he needs this information to compare his case with similarly placed employees. The Appellant highlighted that there is a big difference in the amount that has been paid to him as compared to others. The PIO informed that several correspondence were made to IHQ of MoD (Army) in the similarly placed case as well as in the instant case regarding non-feasibility towards convening review DPC for re-fixing the seniority in the lower grades at this belated stage without any requisite documentss. The CIC ruled that exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not available and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised reply along with requested information.
Comments
To differentiate between personal information and public activity, the CIC relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023.
Citation: Rama Nand Prabhakar v. AOC Records, PIN - 900453, C/o 56 APO; CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/605929; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant expressed grievance regarding non-payment of dearness allowance and family pension and requested for clarification from the PIO as to how payment for the months January to April 2023 was sanctioned. The CIC observed that the information sought is speculative in nature and the same does not qualify as “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Holding that the information is not available under the custody of the respondent PIO, the CIC found no scope for further intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 can be used to obtain uncover inaction or information but by itself, is not a channel for grievance redressal.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/111643; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com