RTI Corner

Appellant sought information of his deceased father’s Bank account. The PIO informed that the account of Late Shri Gulwant Singh was settled on 30.10.2019 in favour of the nominee and daughter-in-law of the deceased account holder. Therefore, the details thereof, were exempted under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act and there is no scope for further intervention in the matter.
Comments
If an applicant seeks information about the bank account of a deceased, information can only be provided if the applicant is a joint-account holder or the nominee in the account. Such information cannot be provided to a third party and only a successor can obtain the information.
Citation: Surjeet Singh v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/100960; 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

A written complaint was filed and the complainant sought to know about the investigation and outcome of the same. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j). On second appeal, the CIC observed that the initial reply given by the PIO and the written submission before it now are not in tune with transparency. The complete denial of the information invoking Section 8(1)(j) is inappropriate as per the RTI Act, since the Appellant being the complainant, has right to know the broad outcome of the action on her complaint. The CIC directed the Railways to provide a revised updated point-wise reply i.e. action taken on the complaint filed by the complainant.
Comments
It has been often seen that a complaint is filed and the complainant later files an RTI application to know the progress or the action taken on the complaint. Exemption sections like section 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(j) have often been resorted to by the PIO’s to deny information. In many cases the CIC has held that the broad outcome of the enquiry should be disclosed to the complainant.
Citation: Kavita Yadav v. Office of the Divisional Railway, Manager, RTI Cell, Jabalpur; File No: CIC/WECRL/A/2023/120568; Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
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 filed an RTI application seeking information about the merit list for each category for Office Assistant (Assistant) appointed under direct recruitment in 2011 and related information. Before the CIC, the Respondent submitted that the instant case is identical to an earlier decided case of the Appellant vide File No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2022/609371 dated 01.02.2023. After perusal of records, the CIC observed that concededly, the instant RTI Application is a sly repetition of an earlier RTI Application filed by the Appellant on 02.11.2021 which has been decided vide File No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2022/609371 dated 01.02.2023. In other words, points 2 & 5 of the RTI Application of 02.11.2021 corresponds to point no.3 of the instant RTI Application while point no.7 of the former RTI Application corresponds to point no. 4 of the instant RTI Application. Therefore, the CIC held that the instant matter is devoid of any such material on record that warrants determination of a fresh issue for consideration.
Comment
An applicant should realise that there is an expenditure on every RTI Application, which is paid from the Taxpayers money. Repeating RTI applications on the same issue not only leads to unnecessary wastage of time and resources, but also causes delay in disposal of appeals by the other RTI applicants.
Citation: Naresh Kumar v. Defense Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune; Second Appeal No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2023/621378; 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 attested photostat copy of certain letter was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. As the FAA upheld the reply given by the PIO, the applicant filed an appeal before the CIC. The PIO submitted that the letter sought for by the Applicant was the communication under which departmental action was sought against the Applicant and it contains the brief of the proposed disciplinary action, details of which were already revealed in the Chargesheet served to him. Upon a query from the CIC regarding the invocation of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the PIO was unable to tender any justification except for reiterating that the details contained in the averred letter were already revealed in the Chargesheet. Despite being afforded with adequate opportunity during the hearing to the PIO to justify the denial as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, no tenable explanation was forthcoming. The CIC noted that the information sought for by the Applicant relates to his own disciplinary case. The CIC rejected the denial of the information and directed the PIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide a reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for therein, free of cost. The CIC granted the limited liberty to the PIO to redact in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, the names and identifying particulars of third parties as well as the personal information, if any, related to third parties, both of which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Comment
The PIO must understand that he/she may be called upon to justify the invocation of the exemption for the denial of the information. To justify the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, PIO must be able explain what impediment will be caused to an investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offender by the disclosure of the averred information.
Citation:Shankar Ram Verma v. Department Of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2023/100589; 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