RTI Corner

Certified copies of the bills raised by the counsels in a petition before the High Court, Name and designation of the officials who approved the counsel fees and related file notings were sought. The respondent bank denied the information on the ground of sub-judice. The CIC observed that more than two years have elapsed and information sought was not provided to the appellant. The then CPIO and present CPIO were show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information. In spite of the orders of the CIC dated 25.05.2022 and 13.09.2022, the respondent had failed to provide the information as directed. It was informed that the bank had challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 of the CIC. The CIC mention that challenging the order may not be legal ground to circumvent the orders of the Commission. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO.
Comments Just because the case is sub-judice, information cannot be denied to an applicant.
Citation: Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK/A/2019/160744; 05.09.2023
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

Information with respect to the Loan/Mortgage loan/Credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Om Sokhal Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd including its directors, their spouses, etc. was denied by UCO Bank under section 8 (1) (e) and (j). The appellant argued that they were the buyers and there had been multiple loans on the same property by the builders, their relatives and the directors. The CIC noted that buyers, including the appellant, had booked a flat and because of the apparent malfeasance which had taken place advertently or inadvertently exhibiting lack of due diligence while financing the project as a whole or to the related parties or group industries. The appellant being buyer of one of the flats was not stranger to the subject matter. The CIC observed that the objective of the RTI is to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities. The whole episode had raised doubts on the propriety of the public authority i.e. bank in financing the project. It was also brought on record that there were criminal cases and civil cases pending investigation or final judicial pronouncements. The appellant has only sought information which was in the custody of the public authority and as the affected party, he has a right to the information sought. Public interest demanded that the same may be made available as sought by the appellant for bringing transparency and accountability, as the final rights and obligations will be decided by the respected courts or other authorities. The CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
It is not uncommon to come across cases where a builder has taken suspicious loans or a bank has granted loans which are being investigated. It is the common buyer who is forced to suffer in silence.
Citation: Radhika Sharma v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682, &CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617; 05.09.2023
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

No reply was provided to the Complainant by the Assam University within the stipulated time frame and hence, a show-cause notice was issued to the PIO to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. An explanation was provided that the CPIO is the nodal officer of the University for transmitting required information to the applicant. The CPIO acquires information from different wings of the University as supplied by the concerned officer. In the instant case, the matter processed and communicated by CPIO as obtained from other wings of the University and there was no intentional delay or dilatory tactics on the part of CPIO. The said information has already been obtained and communicated to the applicant. The CIC accepted the explanation tendered by the then PIO and found no reason to disbelieve him. The CIC observed that there is nothing on record to suggest that the PIO acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence.
Comments
If there is a delay by the deemed PIO, penalty may be imposed on him/her. Hence, it is the duty of the deemed PIO to ensure that the information is provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Citation: Nirupam Deb v. Assam University, CIC/ASUVR/C/2021/643616; Date of Decision: 10.11.2022
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 information about Dr Amulya K Panda Director, National Institute of Immunology like - the name of the subject in which he obtained master’s degree (with specialization, if any), the subject on which he was awarded PhD degree etc. It was informed that Dr Panda has superannuated on 31.05.2021. It is a personal information exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, since it has no relation to public activity or interest and is exempted from disclosure to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy. Relying on the ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal Nos. 10044, 10045 and 2683 (all of 2010), the CIC denied the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upheld the submission of the PIO.
Comments
Information about the educational qualification of scholars is usually available publically, on the website of the organisation. The linked in profile of Dr Amulya K Panda shows his education as PhD - Biotechnology (IIT Delhi), M Tech - Chemical Engineering (IIT Madras) apart from other degrees. It indicates that the individual has no qualms regarding disclosure of his educational degree. The PIO could have issued a third party notice rather than flatly denying the information. If the qualification for a post requires Master’s degree or PhD, it is liable to be disclosed under RTI.
Citation: Dr. D. D. Joshi v. National Institute of Immunology (Ministry of Science & Technology), CIC/NIIMM/A/2022/647852; Date of Decision: 26.07.2023
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

Marks secured Marks secured in Written Exam and interview were sought by a candidate. The PIO informed that the marks of candidates whose candidature has been cancelled have not been provided/ uploaded on the Commission’s website. Since, the candidature of the RTI applicant for the said exam has been cancelled, the information sought cannot be provided as per the UPSC policy. On second appeal, the CIC held that since the Appellant has sought for his own marks and has applied for the same under the RTI Act, the reason cited by the CPIO for denying the same is not in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
As per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the PIO. Relying on UPSC policy to deny an information to a candidate whose candidature is cancelled is not tenable under the RTI Act as Section 22 grants overriding powers to the Act over any other statute.
Citation: Amit Turan v. Union Public Service Commission, CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658298; 07/08/2023
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

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2021 seeking certain information which was duly replied by the CPIO vide letter dated 25.06.2021. In response to the First Appeal dated 30.08.2021, a reply was furnished by the CPIO to the appellant on 05.11.2021. Before the CIC, the CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the averred letter(s) are not available in their record. He further submitted that the First Appeal of the Appellant was rejected as time barred. The Appellant alleged that in respect of writ petition filed before the concerned Court, the Respondent office has referred to these letters and therefore he finds the reply of the PIO to be misleading. The CIC observed that the Respondent office has grossly violated the provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the CPIO has adjudicated the First Appeal. Even if the First Appeal under reference was time barred, it was for the FAA to have issued a decision to that effect on the same and not the CPIO. The CIC is rejected the dismissal of the First Appeal and deemed the matter to be a case of non-adjudication of the instant First Appeal. A copy of this order was marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission and to ensure that such gross lapses do not recur on their part in the future. The CPIO was also warned against exceeding his jurisdiction under the RTI Act in the future.
Comments
The First Appellate Authority has been designated to deal with the First Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act and the CPIO has no jurisdiction to decide upon the maintainability of the first appeal.
Citation: Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Youth Affairs & Sports, CIC/MOYAS/A/2022/103975; Date of Decision: 27/07/2023
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

Multiple RTI applications were filed seeking information about Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960) and related data. He submitted that there is no coordination among AWBI, APEDA, FSSAI, CPCB, and Police, because the halal process of slaughtering without stunning, is very cruel, violating IPC 47, 120-B, 188, 268, 289, 428, 429, read with section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, and article 51 A(g) of the Indian Constitution. The CPIO replied that the Animal Welfare Board of India has not received any fine amount from any States/UTs as per the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Application of fines) Rules. 1965 during the last three years. Hence, no information is available with the Board. The CIC observed that the instant matter is a mere extension of the earlier cases filed by the Complainant on the same grievance regarding ill treatment/ alleged cruelty committed on the animals which cannot be redressed under the mandate of RTI Act. Thus, no action is warranted with respect to the replies of the CPIOs’. The Appellant/Complainant was advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed.
Comments
Many public spirited individuals tend to ignore the definition of “Information” as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act and as such, it only burdens the system with multiple RTI applications with no benefit. In some situations, proper drafting of the RTI Application may elicit a response.
Citation: Naresh Kadyan v. Animal Welfare Board of India, Food Products Export Development Authority, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/646924, +/650976, +/662035, +/664500, +/652694, +/652661, +/662113, +/662114; Date of Decision: 21/07/2023
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

Request for inspection of personal file of Prof. Saba Beg was rejected under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act holding it as third-party information. The CIC observed that no larger public interest has been invoked by the Appellant. The CIC referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in CA No. 10044/2010, 10045/2010 and 2683/2010 and upheld the denial of information.
Comments
In the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of “personal information” which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied.
Citation: Prof. Riyazuddeen v. Aligarh Muslim University, CIC/ALMUV/A/2022/668536; Date of Decision: 30.06.2023
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

Information regarding alleged bogus and inflated bills submitted by one person at Mumbai CAT was not provided. The CIC issued a show cause notice for imposing penalty which could not be heard due to Covid pandemic. The PIO informed that the dealing hand who was in-charge of taking out e-mail pertaining to the online RTI Applications of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, was deployed on Contract basis. He left the office of Mumbai without any notice and also without giving the password of the mail website. As a result, the office was facing difficulty in taking out the Online RTI Applications. There was no intention on his part to withhold the information to be furnished under the RTI Act by any applicant approaching the CAT, Mumbai Bench. By the time the new Assistant Computer official joined the office in the month, the PIO had been transferred to Kolkata. As a result, he could not reply to the RTI Applications sent on website. The CIC accepted the explanation and observed that notwithstanding the lack of malafide, the PIO is expected to exercise due caution and pro-activeness in matters dealt with under the RTI Act in the future.
Comments
Access to password should not be limited to one individual, specially a contractual person, lest such a situation erupts. Further, a new password can always be retrieved rather than leaving the matter as such.
Citation: T C Gupta v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, CIC/CADMT/C/2019/130141; 01/04/2021
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 information relating to MBA, MBA-BA, MBA-HR programs in CAT form at IIM, Amritsar. He stated that he has only sought cut off marks and general information which should be available in public domain and requested that the IIM Amritsar be directed to furnish the information as sought. The IIM Amritsar informed that the Appellant had not furnished proof of his citizenship earlier and information sought at point No. 1 of the RTI Application was duly furnished to the Appellant. The information sought at point No. 2 to 9 is voluminous in nature and collection of data would result in diversion of public funds. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply with respect to point No. 2 to 9 to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, making sure that the information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed.
Comments
The proof of his citizenship should not be sought under there is some strong reason to suspect that the appellant is not an Indian citizen.
Citation: Ronit Rajesh Gaikwad v. Indian Institute of Management-Amritsar, CIC/IIMAS/A/2022/627227; Date of Decision: 05.06.2023
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

Appellant submitted that his First Appeal has not been decided till date and requested for directions to the CPIO and FAA to furnish the information as sought. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant. He further stated that the Appellant has been terminated from service. Upon being queried whether any enquiry is pending relating to which information has been sought in the instant RTI Application, the PIO replied in negative. The CIC observed that it will be just and reasonable that a fair hearing be conducted by the First Appellate Authority in the instant matter and remanded back to the First Appellate Authority.
Comments
Wherever the appellant makes a request, the First Appellate Authority should offer a personal hearing before disposing the appeal.
Citation: Dr. Himal Chand v. Centre for Research in Rural & Industrial Development, CIC/ICSSR/A/2022/131473; 06.07.2023
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

Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [Union of India v. Central Information Commission & Anr in LPA No. 734/2018 dated 22.03.2022), the appellant sought certain information from CBI. It was claimed that the service related matter is covered under the purview of corruption and human rights violation and as such the information should be supplied by the CBI which is listed in Schedule II. The CIC referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 against admission hearing for SLP Diary No. 5557/2023 filed by the Union of India against the Delhi High Court judgment. The Supreme Court did not approve the reasoning given by the High Court and kept the question of law open while not entertaining the SLP.
Comments
The question whether Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act can be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights has been raised often. Should a violation of human rights be considered in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc has been queried. The Apex Court has preferred not to answer the query immediately whether the expression be extended to include controversies relating to service matters and grievances in respect of the disciplinary proceedings.
Citation: Cyril C George v. ACB Cochin, Office of the Supdt. of Police, CBI, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/148116; Date of Decision: 01/06/2023
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