RTI Corner

The details of certain telephone number and the monthly amount paid for it was denied to the appellant. The appellant submitted that even if the information is related to the third parties, the PIO was bound to follow the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the contention of the appellant that the CPIO should have followed the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act before denying the information. The CIC observed that the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act is only to be followed in such cases where the PIO intends to disclose any information related to a third party, which was not the case in the present matter as the PIO had outrightly denied the information while stating that the information is related to third party.
Comments
Section 11(1) of the RTI Act says that where the PIO intends to disclose any third party information on a request made under this Act, the PIO shall, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the information and invite the third party to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed.
Citation: C Christu Raj v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/639531, Date of Decision: 07/09/2020
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

Appellant sought to know about action taken against Private Aided / Grant-in Aid Colleges affiliated to the Andhra University for not implementing the UGC Regulations, 2018. The PIO explained during the hearing that the UGC is not the authority to take any action as this will be done by the University or the State Government who have to ensure implementation of the regulations. The PIO submitted that the UGC Guidelines, 2018 are mandatory in nature and cannot be overlooked. The CIC held that the order is incomplete as there is no categorical reply to the point raised by the appellant as to what action has been taken against those Private Aided / Grant-in Aid Colleges affiliated to the Andhra University who have not implemented the UGC Regulations, 2018. During the hearing, the CPIO explained that there is no procedure in the UGC Regulations to penalize any college. It is the concerned University with which the College is affiliated or the State Government who has to keep a check on the Colleges and UGC has no role to play in this. The CIC held that incomplete information has been provided and directed the PIO to provide an additional reply to the appellant in the same way as was explained by him during the hearing.
Comments
As the overall regulatory body, the UGC has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the quality of education in the country. The submissions made on behalf of the UGC show that it does not have any direct powers to take penal action against the colleges who do not follow the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Citation: Jagannadha K Galinkala v. University Grants Commission (UGC) in File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/661349, Date of Decision: 07/09/2020
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 from DRDL if a particular post comes under new pension scheme or old pension scheme and criteria for placing the selected candidates in New or Old Pensions Scheme. The CIC observed that the Appellant has not made any allegations of human rights violation or corruption in his RTI Application, First Appeal or Second Appeal regarding information about the pension scheme. Adverting to the allegations of human rights violation urged by the advocate of the Appellant during hearing as well as in his written submissions dated 18.07.2020 & 20.07.2020 with respect to the pension scheme, the CIC held that no violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.
Comments
The expression “Human Rights’’ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. The expression “Human Rights” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 means "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India". The expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters of persons working under schedule II organisation.
Citation: G Laxminarayana v. Defence Research & Development Laboratory in File No : CIC/DRADO/A/2018/162164, Date of Decision: 20/07/2020
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

Information about Shram Suvidha cases was denied by the PIO citing 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act without any explanation. The CIC held that the reply was incomplete as merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a PIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. In order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the PIO is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed which was not done. The CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the PIO for his failure to give a proper and complete reply and issued a strict warning to the concerned PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications.
Comments
There are a large number of cases where the PIO or FAA are not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act perhaps due to ignorance of law. In many cases before the CIC, the CIC has directed the Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to educate the concerned officials including the PIOs and the FAAs about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities so that such avoidable lapses do not occur again in future.
Citation: O Y Sankar Reddy v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation in File No.: CIC/EPFOG/C/2019/114953, Date of Decision: 26/08/2020
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