RTI Corner

The appellant had sent several applications before the Supreme Court and submitted that the same were considered/ treated as PIL applications and were uploaded on the website of Supreme Court (Grievance Management Column). He sought certified copies of entire records of the PILs filed by him in 2019. The Registrar informed that six petitions were received and diarised in the PIL section of the registry whose status may be looked at the Supreme Court website. He further informed that except 38511/2019, all the other letter petitions have been weeded out and provided the noting in respect of the one petition. The Appellant submitted that while he had filed only one application on 13.07.2019, status report of the Grievance Management column on the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications. The CIC observed that the reason behind the six applications has been narrated by the Appellant himself in his First Appeal stating that the six separate applications arose out of the same application being transferred from various public authorities viz. Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Law and Justice etc. So, the question raised by the Appellant about the multiplication of the application dated 13.07.2019 has been answered by him in his own First Appeal. It is also noteworthy that multiplication of the application is not the question raised by him in the RTI application. The CIC held that the query raised by the Appellant seeking certified copies of records relating to certain specific PIL cases have been satisfactorily answered by the public authority by providing information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. There is no legal infirmity in the response sent by the public authority, which requires any further adjudication, under the RTI Act.
Comments
The issue which has been overshadowed in the discussions is the fact that for only one application filed, the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications with no outcome.
Citation: Shri Indrajit Biswas v. Supreme Court of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2021/141525; Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
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 prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal of one year may be condoned as the same was caused due to Covid pandemic in the country. The CIC observed that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The reason cited by the appellant cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second as the period from September 2020 to March 2021, the peak time of Covid-19, was already over and all the offices were functioning with basic staff. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the appellant has failed to give a sufficient justified cause explaining delay in preferring the second appeal, hence, the appeal is considered as time barred under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly, dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
Comments
Section 19(3) of the RTI Act provides a time limit of 90 days to file an appeal before the Information Commission and an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period if the Information Commission is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
Citation: Bakulkumar Vaghela v. Directorate General Defence Estate, File no.: CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/142789, Date of Decision: 17.11.2022
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

Col (Retd) Satpal Singh Sandhu had filed RTI application dated 28.04.2021 for inspection of certain files. He authorised Mr. Prem Kumar Singh and Mr. Anil Bakshi to inspect the said files. Accordingly, Mr. Prem Kumar Singh visited the office of CPIO of Defence Estate Office, but the desired inspection of the said files was not provided. During the hearing before the CIC, the representative of Prem Kumar Singh was present, but had failed to send the authority letter in advance of the hearing. The CIC observed that the present complaint is not admissible. The complainant has no onus in filing this complaint as the RTI application was not filed by him but Col (Retd) Satpal Singh Sandhu. Therefore, the Commission did not admit the complaint. However, the CIC ruled that the RTI applicant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in his name and seek condonation of delay, citing the present order.
Comment
Only the RTI applicant is entitled to file an appeal or a complaint. The RTI applicant may authorise another individual to represent him in the course of hearing.
Citation: In the matter of: Prem Kumar Singh (under authority from Satpal Singh Sandhu) v. Defence Estate Office, File No. CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/135827, Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
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

Appellant sought a Hindi version of the information provided in English u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI on the website of MECON which was not provided. On a query, the PIO informed that there is a Rajbhasa Adhikari in the office and in case time is allowed, information can be translated. The CIC observed that available information was given. However, the CPIO can take assistance from the Rajbhasa Adhikari and have the material translated for each and every document disclosed u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and provide the same within 45 days to the appellant by uploading the same on the website and giving him the hyperlink. Further, the CIC directed that in the interest of transparency, the PIO can ensure that Hindi version of the documents are made available on the website, wherever possible.
Comments
Ordinarily, the information has to be provided in the form in which it is available woth the public authority. However, the proactive disclosure should be done in Hindi too to the extent feasible.
Citation: Ashish Kumar Singh v. MECON Limited, File No. CIC/MECON/A/2021/641089, Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
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

Neeraj Shridhar of the Bombay Vikings fame filed an application under RTI Act seeking information about details of IT returns and balance sheet pertaining to his wife and all companies owned by her. He claimed that the information was needed to defend divorce petition as well as for taking legal action against his wife. On not receiving a reply, the appellant approached the CIC. In pursuance of the Appellant’s praying urging that the information is being requested for a maintenance in a matrimonial dispute and by applying the same yardstick as applicable to a wife in such cases, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of the wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days.
Comments
The use of RTI Act to obtain information about the Income of the spouse in Divorce/ Dowry act cases is not uncommon. The copy of income tax returns of the third party is not liable to be disclosed as it is the personal information which is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant has not been able to establish any larger public interest in the matter.
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 had a grievance regarding non-allotment of his alternate entitled land area for construction of a shop in lieu of the land acquired by the Damodar Valley Corporation which caused him financial stress. He sought an action taken report on his application along with a note sheet of daily progress on his complaint which was denied under sections 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC ruled that blanket denial of information was not appropriate. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply indicating the categorical action taken on the averred complaint along with the relevant available information after procuring the same from the actual record holder after applying severability in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act. Regarding allocation of land area for his shop, the CIC held that it is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act.
Comments
The Right to Information Act provides the mechanism for procuring information which can be used for the redressal of any grievance. It is not, by itself, a forum for grievance redressal.
Citation: Amal Mandal v. Damodar Valley Corporation, File No: CIC/DVCOR/A/2022/120453, Date of Decision: 03.11.2022
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 copies of the appointment letters issued to the dependents of the deceased employees for appointment on compassionate grounds during a particular period. During the hearing, the appellant’s representative submitted that the father of the appellant was an employee and hence, information should be given. The CIC observed that the information sought is related to third parties and rightly rejected by the respondent. However, the exemption clause was not correctly quoted. The personal information of third parties are exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC further observed that the FAA failed to dispose of the first appeal on time which is a sorry state of affairs. The CPIO and the FAA were both cautioned to be careful regarding the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
This is a case where the CIC held that this is a third party information which is duly exempt under the RTI Act. However, both the CPIO and the FAA were at the receiving end due to ignorance of the provisions of the RTI. The CPIO did not quote the correct exemption clause while the FAA did not follow the timeline. All officers must learn the basics of the RTI Act to save themselves from such humiliation.
Citation: Rajesh Nayak v. The CPIO O/o the Cantonment Board Ramgarh, File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2021/132210, Date of Decision: 02.11.2022
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 the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, the details of promotion proceedings, list of selected GMs and their bio data, performance appraisal reports of other employees, etc. The respondent submitted that there was no provision for promotion from Scale VI to Scale VII. Further, the appellant was not promoted to the post of General Manager. Therefore, it was evident that the appeal dated 23.01.2015 was rejected. Moreover, the details of other selected GMs and their promotion proceedings were fiduciary in nature and could not be parted with the appellant. The CIC observed that the reply given by the respondent was partly evasive. The appellant had inter alia sought the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, the details of promotion proceedings, list of selected GMs and their bio data, performance appraisal reports of other employees, etc. The details of other employees such as their appraisal reports, bio data, etc. consisted personal details and third party information. However, the final results of promotion of selected employees i.e. final marks secured of selected candidates should have been published in public domain for the sake of transparency and accountability. Further, the appellant was entitled to know the status of his appeal/petition dated 23.01.2015 and appeal regarding low marking in his APAR. The CIC directed to provide the information in respect of the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, selection process records including marks and comments recorded by DPC for the promotion process from DGM to GM.
Comments
There should be transparency in the selection process to maintain the faith of the citizens on the selection process.
Citation: N Sai Prasad v. Indian Overseas Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2020/133750, 01.11.2022.
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

Clarification regarding Para 1.4.1 of Medical Council of India, Code of Ethics wherein it was stated that "every physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/ Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to his patients, whether the medical prescriptions were issued by doctors without registration numbers; if so, will it be considered as a legal documents in Court of Law. The PIO stated that the queries raised by the Appellant were eliciting opinion and therefore it did not constitute as "information" defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that wanton aggressive behavior of the patients for the neglect of services by the Doctors is understandable, it is also necessary to protect the rights of the patients aggrieved by wrongful treatment and faulty prescriptions given by the Doctors. The CIC asked the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare as also Ministry of AYUSH to exercise due diligence in enforcing the Code of Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics laid down by the Medical Council in such a manner that it should not endanger the life and physical safety of any person owing to violation of any of the clauses laid down in the aforesaid Regulations. If necessary, the Government may re-visit extant guidelines and re-formulate certain Rules / Regulations for its enforcement and for initiating penal action.
Comments
There is a thin line between what constitutes “information” under the RTI Act and the manner in which authorities should enforce transparency. The RTI Act is aimed at holding the authorities accountable for their actions. This is a classic case where RTI Act has been used to implement norms.
Citation: Ms. Rita Hore v. Medical Council of India in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/611068-BJ; Date of Decision: 26.06.2019
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

As information pertaining to State Bank of India was sought, the RBI forwarded the RTI Application to the concerned PIO, SBI under section 6 (3) of RTI Act as the information sought did not belong to the respondent public authority. The CIC observed that since the RBI is not the custodian of information, therefore the requested information cannot be provided by the RBI. The Commission held that as per the provisions of section 6 (3) of RTI Act, the RTI Application can only be transferred to another public authority comes within the organization wherein in the present case the information sought pertains to a separate public authority which does not fall within the respondent organization. The respondent could have advised the appellant to approach the concerned pubic authority instead of transferring the RTI Application by themselves. Hence, the respondent has wrongly transferred the instant RTI Application to the O/o SBI. The Commission cautioned the RBI to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Section 6(3) permits transfer of the application under intimation to the applicant if the information is held by another public authority or if the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority. Thus, the inference drawn by the CIC that application can only be transferred to another public authority which comes within the organization u/s 6(3) is not legal and proper. The sec 6(3) allows transfer of application to a separate public authority which does not fall within the respondent organization.
Citation: Mr. Parsuram Mishra v. Reserve Bank of India in Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2020/136684, Date of decision: 04.07.2022
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 whether a Superintendent of CGST (third party) has taken station leave permission to visit CBI Delhi office for more than 50 times during year 2015 to 2020 and related information. The PIO informed that on the basis of available record, the third party has neither applied nor granted any station leave to visit CBI Delhi office. The PIO submitted that the Appellant wanted an answer terms of Yes or No which is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the OM dated 11.09.2012 was applicable as it relates to official tours for the Joint Secretary and above rank which is not the case here. The CIC observed that concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised interrogative and speculative queries regarding a third party. The CIC held that the clarifications sought for relate to a third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further held that the appellant is seeking an action which is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act.
Comments
Looking into the extent of the RTI Act in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. In another case, the Supreme Court held that the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.
Citation: Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner, Vadodata-1, CGST Commissionerate, File No : CIC/CCEVD/A/2021/641582, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
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

Certified details of meeting-wise honorarium paid to Chairman and each member of Bar Council was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC upheld the denial citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044, 10045, 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified.
Comments
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. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.
Citation: Maman Chand Sharma v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in File No: CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
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