RTI Corner

Information regarding recruitment of faculty of NIT Kurukshetra including list of shortlisted candidates, list of selected candidates for the post of lecturer and other related information was sought. The appellant submitted that he received a reply which was delayed by one year and requested for imposition for penalty on the PIO. The CIC observed that despite a penalty of Rs 2000/- being imposed on the same PIO in another case, he has not concerned to reply to the present RTI application. The Commission took a serious note of the one year delay in providing a reply, the lackadaisical approach of the PIO and the inaction of the First Appellate Authority in providing a reply and observed that it shows the poor functioning of the respondent organisation. The CIC observed that the PIO is incorrigible as despite penalty being imposed earlier, he has still adopted a casual approach in dealing with this RTI application. A strict warning was issued to improve the manner of handling RTI applications and follow the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. Furthermore, the FAA was issued a strict warning for not disposing off the first appeal. The Chairperson, Board of Governor, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra was directed to take steps to ensure that the PIO and the FAA are dedicated towards promoting transparency and providing timely replies.
Comments
The PIO and FAA ensure timely disposal of RTI applications / appeals filed before them. Penalty may be imposed on a PIO in case of failure in performing the duty and even disciplinary action can be taken against the PIO.
Citation: Sudakar Singh Chauhan v. CPIO, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra in Decision no.: CIC/NITKS/A/2018/151482/01601, Date of Decision: 12/09/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant sought a certified copy of all documents submitted by him at the time of his appointment in the Hindi Teaching Scheme (HTS), Chennai Office. The CIC held that the appellant is not entitled to the information as a matter of right under the RTI Act and the information sought cannot be provided to him.
Comments
In the case of High Court, Madras v. CIC, WP No. 26781/2013, the Madras High Court held that the copies of complaints and appeals submitted by an appellant are not the information available within the knowledge of the public authority. Admittedly, they are the documents of the appellant and therefore, if the appellant does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Citation: K N Rajasekar v. CPIO, Department of Official Language in Second Appeal No. CIC/DPOOL/A/2018/114542 dated 28.08.2019
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/