RTI Corner

The applicant sought certain information from the Security Paper Mill like the standards for testing of parameters of Density, Brookfield Viscosity and Non-Volatile Solid in respect of Polymer (Flocculant). The PIO denied the information claiming that the actual and complete procedures can't be shared with or provided to others because it was their internal confidential documents and being a Security Organization and being a NABL Accredited Lab, they have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization. The CIC observed that the information has been denied without even invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. Repeated opportunities were afforded by CIC to justify the denial under any of the exemptions envisaged under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act, yet, the Respondent continued to harp on the ‘approval of competent authority’ and eventually quoted Section 8(1)(d) in an unconvincing manner. The CIC observed that what has been sought by this Applicant is merely the testing procedure followed by Security Paper Mill Quality Control Lab (SPM QC) for testing of certain parameters in respect of a product, Polymer (Flocculant), which is procured by Security Paper Mill (SPM) through public tender. SPM accepts or rejects the product supplied by vendors on the basis of testing carried out using these procedures and these testing procedures are, therefore, a matter of public interest, since vendors’ interests will be adversely affected if material is rejected on the basis of inappropriate / non- standard testing procedures. The information sought does not pertain to any of the core activities of SPM and does not affect security interests in any manner. Holding that this information must be provided and cannot be withheld on the ground of confidentiality, the CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
Without properly invoking section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act, a PIO should not reject the application seeking information. If the interests of a vendor are affected by the procedure followed by the public authority, the public interest may be claimed to seek the details of such procedure.
Citation:Mahasweta M. v. Security Paper Mill, M.P., CIC/SPMIL/A/2022/635766; Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
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 PIO of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office and transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO of Bangalore Development Authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which is separate Public Authority under the State Government, The CIC observed that the PIO has given a timely response to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter. The CIC held that had the Appellant been actually interested in getting information, he would have approached the transferee Public Authority to know the actual status of the information. But the Appellant in the present case filed the first appeal with present Respondent Public Authority. This shows that the Appellant wants to pressurize the Respondent to create information which is not in their record. Further, the CIC held that the Appellant cannot raise fresh queries/issues at the stage of first appeal/second appeal. The directions of the First Appellate Authority to the PIO to go through the concern raised by the appellant in the first appeal and take further action were set aside.
Comments
An appeal should be filed with the FAA of the organisation which is holding the information. A PIO can file an appeal against the orders of his/her own FAA.
Citation: Vasanth Kumar V M v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, CIC/MOENF/A/2023/613465; Date of Decision: 18-03-2024
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 sought for information regarding Lease Deed dated March 30, 2016, executed between Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) and Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank) wherein JIL transferred to IDBI Bank a land measuring 50.26 acres through Debt Asset Swap (DAS) in order to liquidate their out-standing liabilities amounting to Rs.253.32 Crores. He asked whether any transaction, in part(s) or full, by sale or transfer, took place between March 30, 2016 and August 31, 2023. The appellant argued that after March 30, 2016 and upon DAS, all Ownership and Tangible Rights to the said landed property remained with IDBI Bank in its fullness and hence, there remains No Fiduciary Relationship or Larger Public interest between IDBI Bank and JIL. Further, it is wrong on part of for IDBI Bank to invoke Larger Public interest as there are more than 22,000 Home Buyers of JIL. The appellant alleged that the IDBl Bank has not come out clean and transparent on the information sought only through substantiation of tangible right of JIL in the said property. The CIC directed to provide the available information to the Appellant.
Comments RTI has emerged as a potent tool to obtain information for those affected adversely in a commercial dispute.
Citation:Sqn. Ldr. S. D. Mitroo v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/147236; Date of Decision: 23.02.2024
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 asked the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to inform in how many High Courts, a separate advocate was appointed to present its case apart from apart from the Additional Solicitor General of India, and the amount paid by PCI to the advocate from the year 2020 till now. The PIO informed that such list is not available. On second appeal, the Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. The CIC held that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Comments
The quantum of payment made to the advocates has often been argued as personal information held in the fiduciary capacity. In most organisations, there would be a legal head for making the payments which would contain the details of the expenditure incurred during the financial year. Further, such information can be found after inspection of the individual files.
Citation: Shri Arvind Kumar v. Pharmacy Council of India, CIC/PHRCI/A/2023/646736; Date of Decision: 27.02.2024
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 sought to know whether Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack, Odisha is affiliated to Bar Council of India (BCI) and sought the correspondence details about its affiliation along with the inspection reports. The Respondent stated that the inspection reports of colleges are not uploaded on the site of BCI but the facilities, campus, faculty etc. details are displayed on the website of the concerned College/University. Such inspection reports contain photographs and other details pertaining to the University/College shared in confidence with the BCI, hence, the inspection reports are not put in public domain by the BCI. However, the Respondent conceded that inspection report containing generic information can be provided to the Appellant if so directed by the CIC. In exercise of its powers under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act, the CIC gave a recommendation to the BCI to make endeavour to disclose as much information as possible on its website in terms of the mandate laid down under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, particularly voluntarily disclose every inspection report of the colleges/universities recognised/affiliated under BCI in order to enhance transparency in the process of recognizing law colleges.
Comments
There have been complaints about the manner in which recognition / grading of the institutions is done by the regulatory bodies. Such disclosure would aid in putting an end to such complaints. It would be keenly watched what kind of mechanism the BCI adopts for disclosure.
Citation: Shri Shashwata Sekhar Baral v. Bar Council of India, CIC/BCOIN/A/2023/616519; Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
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

Information pertaining to crash of an Attack Helicopter (IA 2148) of Indian Army on 25 January 2021 in an operational area near international border was sought by Mr Manik Chopra who was Commanding Officer of the said attack helicopter unit when the incident took place. A Court of Inquiry was initiated to investigate the circumstances in which the accident occurred. A certified copy of Preliminary Report received by HQ Western Command on 15 Jun 2021 was denied by the PIO under section 8 (1) (e) & 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. The appellant alleged that certain officers arranged a copy of Preliminary Report and used it to attach and subsequently post out him (appellant) without providing a copy of the report to defend himself as per the provisions of natural justice. The respondent stated that purpose of the Preliminary Report in the instant case was limited to identify any immediate concerns relating to the safe operation of the attack helicopters and recommend precautionary measures to arrest similar occurrences in the highly active operational area, and the same had no relevance to either investigation by the court of Inquiry in the matter or subsequent departmental action against the appellant. In addition to the above, the communication of the said report to any person not authorized, may prejudice the National Security and also adversely affect the war preparedness of the Indian Army. It was also submitted that the information sought was held with their Headquarters Western Command in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the security of the state and no public interest was involved in the request of the appellant. The CIC held that the reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provision of the RTI Act and no interference is required.
Comments
As a Commanding Officer of the attack helicopter unit, the appellant was privy to all the records of the relating to the unit. In matters where national has been cited, the decision tends to be against the appellant. Ordinarily, any person charge-sheeted is given an opportunity to defend himself.
Citation: Manik Chopra v. Western Command, CIC/IARMY/A/2022/147250; Date of Decision : 19-02-2024
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 sought for certain information from University Grants Commission (UGC) - a photocopy of the rules that education institutions cannot keep original documents of students such as marksheet, passing certificate, Migration certificate and other documents. He further asked for the number of members of NAAC team visit a college during inspection, the checks carried out by them, cost for NAAC inspection per college / per university, source of UGC revenue etc. Dissatisfied with the response received, the Appellant approached the CIC. The CIC observed that the appellant communicated to the Registry that he had received the requisite information and was not willing to pursue the second appeal any further. The CIC held that there is no scope for further intervention in the matter.
Comments
The UGC website contains some information on their website such as Annual reports. However, most of the information sought in the RTI application ought to have been provided suo-motu by the UGC. In this case, the CIC should have directed the UGC to put the information on their website. It would be prudent for the UGC to consider putting up a series of FAQ’s for the benefit of the students and their parents.
Citation: Abhishek Ranjan v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/622787; Date of Decision: 16.01.2024
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 complainant sought details of action taken on a complaint of withdrawal of money from bank account using forged signature and using ATM. Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA did not pass any order. The Commission observed that the respondent furnished point-wise reply, however, both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite hearing notices having been served upon them. The CIC took a serious note of the absence of the PIO during the hearing without prior intimation and directed to submit written explanations citing reasons for their absence during the hearing before the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. In view of the absence of both the parties and the matter not being pressed for, the Commission found no scope for further intervention in the matter and dismissed the dismissed.
Comments
A PIO should not abstain from hearing without prior intimation lest a show cuase notice is served for imposing penalty under section 20.
Citation: Heera Shauharat v. Punjab National Bank, Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2022/141431; Date of Decision: 01.02.2024
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 documentation of complete data of caste-based census completed by Govt of India since year 1991 and other related information. He specifically sought certified copies under section 2(j) (iii) of the RTI Act requesting not share any website link available in public domain claiming that he lacks expertise to analyse that data. The PIO stated that relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant from their official record. She added that the relevant website link has also been furnished to him. She stated that the link furnished to the Appellant is user friendly and complete data related to census 2011 is already available on website. She further stated that the data related to census 2011 is voluminous in nature and it is not feasible to furnish the hardcopy of the same. The Appellant submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he has clearly mentioned in his RTI Application to provide the certified copies of all the documents sought and not the relevant website link. The CIC noted that that when an information or record is already in the public domain and there is a procedure for disclosure of such information, the same cannot be said to be held or under the control of public authority and it is deemed to be given to the public at large.
Comments
The officers of the public authorities who are designated as CPIOs have other duties and the duty to be discharged by them as CPIO is mostly an additional responsibility. Dealing with request for information is a time consuming process which is a drain on the resources of the public authorities. Ordinarily, photocopies of records which are already made in the public domain are not to be provided.
Citation: Shri Prashant Vilas Dhasal v. Office of the Registrar General of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/ORGOI/A/2022/643113; Date of Decision: 18.01.2024
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

Information about the clause under which CHAFAA allowance of the appellant was not adjusted and other information was sought from the Bihar Regimental Centre. The Respondent informed the CIC that a sum of Rs. 1,08,258/ - in lieu of CHAFAA was remitted in the account of Appellant. The CIC noted that the core contention has already clarified by Respondent through written submission that this amount was credited to the account of Appellant. The CIC found no infirmity in the response furnished in terms of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC cautioned the Respondent to be careful in future and avoid causing disregard to the hearing proceedings by remaining absent before the bench to avoid attracting penal action.
Comments
The case law depicts how the RTI Act is being used by citizens for grievance redressal. It also shows that even after providing the information to the appellant and solving his grievance, the public authority was at the receiving end before the CIC as the PIO abstained at the hearing proceedings.
Citation: Dhage Sandip Sudam v. Pay Account Office (ORs), Bihar Regimental Centre, File No : CIC/PAYAO/A/2022/149251/CGDAC; Date of Decision : 11-01-2024
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

An online RTI application was filed seeking certain information from the CPIO, CBDT, New Delhi who transferred the RTI Application to the CPIO, Principal CCIT New Delhi who in turn transferred the application to the CPIO, PCIT New Delhi to send the information directly to the Complainant. The Complainant filed a complaint with the CIC on the ground of non-receipt of proper reply from the CPIO except mere intimation of transfer of RTI Application. The respondent submitted that inadvertently, the then Nodal Officer (RTI) /CPIO in office of the Pr. CCIT could not transfer the RTI application to the concerned CPIO Income Tax Officer, Ward 59(8), D-Block, Vikash Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The respondent expressed their regret and submitted that this type of mistake will not occur in future. The CIC observed that such casual conduct of the CPIOs' tantamount to disregard for the proceedings of the Commission and also cause unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's right to information which is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act. The CIC issued show cause notice to the CPIO but after hearing the submissions, held that there is no malafide or deliberate omission on the part of the Respondent and penalty proceedings were dropped.
Comment
While transferring an application filed under the RTI Act under section 6(3), a CPIO must exercise due caution to identify who is the concerned CPIO. It would save time and avoid unnecessary delay in providing the information.
Citation: Anurag Agarwal v. Income Tax Department, Complaint No. CIC/CBODT/C/2022/651966; Date of Decision: 29.12.2023
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

In response to an application seeking certain information, the RTI applicant was provided opportunity to attend the personal hearing on two occasions to make the CPIO / FAA to understand his query, however, the applicant chose not to attend the same on any of the occasions. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been already furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He stated that the Appellant was working as a JSO in MoSPI and he has been absconding since April 2023 and has failed to join office despite various communications and reminder letter sent to him in this regard. He offered inspection of record to the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
Comments
The PIO should not use “an offer of inspection of documents” as a tool to deny information. If the RTI applicant is unable to come personally for inspection or personal hearing, an authorised representative may be deputed to for the same.
Citation: Shri Ankit Demta v. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSPI/A/2022/666229; Date of Decision: 04.01.2024
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