RTI Corner

The appellant filed a complaint against a JNU Registrar and wanted the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to take action against him. The PIO informed the appellant about the fact that the averred complaint filed by him was filed in their records without action as it did not concern the role and functions of CAT. The CIC upheld the stand of the PIO observing that the Appellant appears to be harbouring a grievance against the action/inaction on his complaint against a JNU professor filed by him with various authorities like PMO, MHRD etc. as he believes that the forwarding of the said complaint to the concerned JNU professor by these authorities is a travesty of justice against which he complained to CAT thereafter.
Comments
An appellant should restrict his RTI Application to seeking information as it is beyond the powers of the Information Commission to decide any other matter. The Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) observed that while deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, 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. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) 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.
Citation: Chitresh Kumar Banjare v Central Administrative Tribunal in File No : CIC/CADMT/A/2021/114543, Date of Decision: 16/06/2022
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

During the appeal before the CIC, the Ministry of Home Affairs submitted that the tamra-patras were issued by the central government in 1972 only and thereafter by the respective state governments. Hence, the information could not be provided in the form it was requested by the Appellant. It was added that the first appeal pertaining to a different RTI application was annexed by the Appellant in the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant before the CIC. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the PIO was not exhaustive and the reasons provided during the hearing should have been mentioned therein. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the Appellant offering him an inspection of available records on a mutually convenient date and time and giving the reasons why complete information cannot be provided. The Appellant was also cautioned to ensure that correct documents pertaining to the specific case are chronologically attached with the Second Appeals/ Complaints filed before the CIC henceforth.
Comments
The PIO must ensure that the reply sent by him is complete and is self-explanatory. Incomplete or non-specific replies may end in an appeal wasting precious time of the CIC, the appellant, and the public authority.
Citation: Shri Rohit Sabharwal v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/140086, Date of Decision: 26.04.2022
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

Copy of a Cabinet Note on the basis of which the decision was taken and certain OM regarding rate of dearness allowance was issued was denied claiming that the noting in the file/Cabinet Note in respect of revision of rate of DA is a secret document. The CIC observed that the PIO has not bothered to invoke any exemption clause of the RTI Act to deny the information or mentioned any reasoning which corresponds to any of the prescribed exemptions. Further, since the averred Cabinet Decision was final and matter was complete, the information could not have been withheld by the PIO. A show notice was issued to the PIO why penalty as prescribed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him. During the hearing, the PIO was persistently depending upon his Section Officer to speak on his behalf and remained flustered throughout the course of the hearing but pleaded that his omission may be condoned this time. The CIC observed that the Cabinet note requested for by the Complainant does not even exist, which makes the question of ‘secrecy’ or applicability of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act redundant. The CIC further observed that apparently, the CPIO has absolutely no knowledge about the provisions of the RTI Act as he denied the information by citing it as a ‘secret document’. The CIC severely admonished the PIO and issued a strict warning to ensure that he first acquaints himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act and secondly, he has to own up to his actions and be accountable for his replies under the RTI Act without having to rely on a subordinate officer to even speak on his behalf during a show-cause hearing.
Comments
Even after seventeen years of coming in force of the RTI Act, there are many officers who do not possess even rudimentary knowledge of the Act. Unless a PIO keeps himself abreast with the provisions of the RTI Act, errors may creep in resulting into imposition of penalty.
Citation: R. Rajasekharan v. Department of Expenditure in File No : CIC/DOEXP/C/2020/138545, Date of Final decision: 28.03.2022
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 Complainant stated that his Ultrasonography (USG) Chest was done in Base Hospital Delhi Cantt. At that time, there were two lady doctors only in the dark room, one was from army and the other was the doctor who did his USG Chest. During USG, both these female doctors did not call any male attendant and his USG was performed in absence of a male attendant. In this connection, the complainant sought the information about whether two lady doctors can do ultrasound test of a male patient alone in any military hospital in USG room in absence of a male attendant and the relevant rules. The CPIO informed that only such information can be provided which is available and existing. The CIC noted that the application consists of questions rather than information as defined in the RTI Act and therefore, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Comments
Technically, the order is legal and proper as the information about the rules which exist can only be provided. As per law, whenever a male doctor examines a female patient, it should be in the presence of a female attendant. However, there are no specific guidelines regarding the reverse situation - examination of a male by a female doctor.
Citation: Manjeev Singh v. IHQ of MoD Army and Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt in File no.: - CIC/ARMHQ/C/2021/654211, Date of Decision: 26.04.2022
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

Appellant sought details regarding number of lapsed policies and amount involved in the early stages of the policy such as after the payment of first premium, first year premium etc. The PIO of LIC contended that the information sought by the appellant does not exist as a record as defined under section 2 (i) of the RTI Act. The requested information will have to be created by 2048 Branches of LIC spread all over India and then to be collected and collated and compiled merely to reply to the RTI queries of the appellant. It will disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Corporation, which is strictly forbidden under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the queries of the appellant are non-specific, unclear as information related to all the lapsed policies and seeking such voluminous data is not maintainable under the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that the LIC has provided a categorical reply vide their written submission dated 06.04.2022 which clarifies some of the issues raised in the RTI Application and upheld the same. Further, the CIC admonished the LIC for not providing the specific reply ab initio as per their written submission and cautioned them to be more diligent in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act..
Comments
The PIO is not expected to compile information under the RTI Act. Further, the initial reply to the RTI Application should be proper as the onus of denial of information is on the PIO.
Citation: Mr. Ajamuddin Taher Khairatkhan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2020/680978, Date of order: 21.04.2022
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

Information was sought about pension and interpretation of FR 56 various Ministries for individuals who are born on the 1st in the afternoon of the preceding date and retiring. The Commission remarked upon a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has placed the facts of the case on record in an extremely cumbersome manner and having perused the records of 4 other similar cases being heard simultaneously with this case, it is evident that through his RTI Applications, the Appellant is in a habit of narrating grievances and seeks for information as a passing reference which the CPIO cannot be expected to deduce and interpret to his satisfaction. The CIC observed that the PIO, in his wisdom, has interpreted certain queries in the RTI Application and provided some information which is in conformity with the spirit of the RTI Act. Taking a liberal view in the case, the CIC directed the PIO to revisit the queries, and provide any additional information that may be available to the Appellant, free of cost.
Comments
Many PIO face RTI Applications where the applicant keeps on describing a situation over a number of paragraphs and somewhere hidden amidst it, is a query. It is advisable to have an open mind in all such applications and not miss the request seeking the information in the heap of words.
Citation: Gopal Krishan v. Department of Pensions & Pensioner’s Welfare in File No: CIC/DP&PW/A/2021/106830, Date of Decision: 30/03/2022
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 has sought information about the competent authority responsible to take action on the alleged irregularities and misuse of funds. The appellant was guided to the website where information is available. The CIC observed that the PIO could not provide the hyperlink where the information is available. The appellant categorically denied the availability of information on the website. The CIC observed that there is no mechanism to check the availability without the PIO’s assistance and directed that the information available on the website can be printed and given to the appellant in the interest of transparency.
Comments
In most cases where the information is available on the website of the organisation, the PIO is not supposed to take a printout and provide it to the applicant. The PIO should provide the specific link of the page rather than giving a vague reply that the information is available on the website of the organisation.
Citation: T Retna Pandian v. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology in File no.: CIC/DBTEC/A/2020/133004, Date of Decision: 31/03/2022
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 complainant submitted that the requested information has not been provided to him by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The respondent submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay vide Writ Petition No. 2327/ 2009 has already granted stay on applicability of RTI Act to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. vide order dated 18.01.2010 and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. The CIC disposed off the complaint..
Comments
A simple issue such as whether or not the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. is a public authority, has been pending before the Hon’ble High Court for more than 12 years. Such inordinate delays would shake the faith of the people in the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Mr. B P Thirupalu v. LIC Housing Finance Limited in Complaint No. CIC/LICOI/C/2020/678378, Date of order: 08-04-202
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 copies of communication made by the erstwhile MCI with the office of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the response of CAG regarding the internal audit were sought. The CIC observed that initially no reply was provided by then PIO, National Medical Commission. In view of the same, CIC expressed severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. The CIC directed the then PIO to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. Further, the CIC directed the present PIO to search the relevant records sought thoroughly and provide the relevant information to the appellant, free of cost, within 15 days. In the event the relevant records are not traced, the PIO must affix the responsibility of an individual responsible for maintenance of records under whose supervision said records are lost and lodge an FIR in lieu of the missing records so that proper investigation can be conducted.
Comments
In many cases where the public records are misplaced, the CIC has directed to file an FIR and fix the responsibility.
Citation: Anupam Dhua v. National Medical Commission in Second Appeal No.: CIC/NMCOM/A/2021/661367, Date of Decision: 31.03.2022
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 Complainant filed four RTI applications in 2020 seeking certain information from the NHAI. Having not received any response from the PIO in response to each of the RTI Applications, the complainant filed the instant set of complaints with the CIC. To a query from the CIC regarding the inordinate delay in filing of instant Complaints, the Complainant stated that he was preoccupied with medical treatment from Kolkata which led to such delay in filing of the complaints. He further stated that it is the prerogative of the CIC to take cognizance of the matter or not. The PIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions dated 29.03.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that timely point wise response against all the averred RTI Applications has already been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.06.2010. The CIC observed that neither in his complaints nor during the hearing, the complainant has mentioned any reasonable grounds for such inordinate delay in filing of the Complaints in the year 2021 i.e. after a decade or so. The CIC found no scope of action in the matter.
Comments
As per the legal maxim i.e. ”Vigilantibus Non Dormientbus Jura Subveniunt”, the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. A complainant should remain watchful and use his rights judiciously.
Citation: S N Jha v. National Highway Authority of India in File No : CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109298 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109655 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109338 + CIC/NHAIN/C/2021/109309, Date of Decision: 31/03/2022
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 a copy of the answer sheets in English Language in ICSE Examination which was not provided The Assistant Secretary informed that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act and as such, the information cannot be provided. The CIC observed that the Respondent office has established that it is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. The denial of information was upheld.
Comments
In many previous orders, [CIC in Anil Karla vs. CPIO bearing File No. CIC/MOHRD/C/2019/133799; Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WP No. 12549 (W) of 2016 Dinesh Sinha and others Vs. The ICSE and others; and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 617/2011 CISCE Vs. Ajay Jhuria] has ruled that ICSE is not amenable to RTI Act.
Citation: Yakshay Chheda v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination in CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/650057, Date: 11.03.2022
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 stated that through this appeal he aims to bring out the inconsistency in the procedure followed by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in issuing copyrights registration certificate and problems faced by start-up entrepreneurs. In the absence of hard copy of the copyrights certificate, it will be difficult for the start-ups to challenge infringement of their copyrights in a Court of Law based on mere digitised proofs and the litigation process will thus incur unwarranted costs. The CIC apprised the Appellant about the mandate of the RTI Act and the PIO clarified that digital registration certificate is issued as per their procedure and is indeed an admissible document in a Court of Law. The CIC observed that the Appellant has gone beyond the mandate of the RTI Act in seeking additional information at the First & Second Appeal stage based on the reply received from the CPIO in response to the instant RTI Application while bringing up issues concerning the merits of the administrative processes of the Respondent office. The CIC held that the issues thus raised by the Appellant are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Hansi Rawat and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Delhi High Court 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.
Citation: Ramesh Balasubramaniam v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2020/688343, Date of Decision: 20/01/2022.
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