RTI Corner

The appellant sought the copy of Letter from competent authority for Lok Sabha Elections held in Delhi in May 2024 and the list of RCS staff deputed for election duty from the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, regarding Bannu Biradari CGHS Ltd. The Appellant contended that the PIO neither forwarded the RTI Application to the Administration branch nor gathered the information from the concerned record holder. The CIC observed that the CPIO’s reply is prima-facie evasive/misleading. The CIC further observed that the PIO ought to have forwarded the RTI Application to the Administration branch or should have sought the assistance of the concerned record holder as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC commented that the FAA is also found to have abdicated the statutory duty under the RTI Act. The CIC directed to provide the information permissible under RTI Act. Noting the absence of the PIO or an authorized representative during the hearing, the CIC directed the PIO to send a proper written explanation stating the reasons for acting in defiance of the stipulations contained in the notice of hearing.
Comments
The PIO is expected to seek the help of the holder of information under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The concerned individual whose assistance is sought to provide the information is the deemed PIO.
Citation: Adarsh Kumar Dua v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2024/139457; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information about the number of personnel sanctioned, vacant and available posts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and related information. The PIO asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 376/- for providing a copy of Scheduled for the year 2023-24 (Schedule contains a total of 188 pages @ Rs 2 per page). The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not deposited the additional fee till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the information sought pertains to sanctioned, filled and vacant posts in MCD, which directly relates to its organizational structure and public appointments. Such information falls within Section 4(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of the RTI Act and is mandatorily required to be disclosed on a suo motu basis by the Public Authority. Hence, the insistence on charging photocopying fees in this case is not justified, as the denial of free access runs contrary to the spirit of proactive disclosure. The CIC noted that the MCD is not complying with the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act in letter and spirit and counseled that every Public Authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. The MCD was advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
The question of further fee to be demanded in case of information which is required to be disclosed pro-actively has been categorically dealt in this case. The public authorities should provide the information as required under section 4 on their website.
Citation: Pooja Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/112338; Date of Decision : 11.09.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information regarding enlistment of contractors in MES, retention period of related records, transfer of records after expiry of retention period, receipt of his application dated 18.09.2023, as well as queries regarding contractors’ bills and refund of fees. The PIO stated that information had already been forwarded under earlier letters, and that relevant files were not traceable as they were 35 years old. He also stated that as per the Accounts Officer, GE (West) Lucknow, the retention period of contractors’ bills was 10 years. The CIC observed that the reply furnished by the PIO is incomplete and evasive. Simply stating that retention is “10 years” without providing the authenticated Record Retention Schedule is inadequate under the RTI framework. Despite service of notice, the PIO failed to appear before the CIC which was viewed seriously as it reflects disregard towards the proceedings of the CIC. The CIC directed the Respondent to provide a copy of their records retention schedule to the Appellant free of cost within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the CIC cautioned the PIO to remain vigilant in future and ensure timely attendance before the CIC as well as proper discharge of duties mandated under the RTI Act, failing which penal action can be initiated against him/her.
Comments
Every department should retain a copy of the destruction memo in accordance with the Record Retention Schedule. It would be handy to show that the documents have actually been destroyed as per the prescribed guidelines.
Citation: Sunil Kumar v. Garrison Engineer (West) Military Engineer Services, File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/109476; Date of Decision: 08.09.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information from the Directorate of Education about the pay scale PGT teachers working with Universal Public School such as whether there is Pay parity with Government school teachers, percentage of Basic Pay paid as DA etc. During the hearing before the CIC, the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that the documents provided to him are not attested or certified by the PIO. The CIC directed the Directorate of Education to provide certified copies of relevant documents free of charge to the Appellant.
Comments
A citizen can seek information about a private organization from the public authority which holds the information. The certified copy of the document can be used as evidence in a court of law.
Citation: Khagesh Chandra Joshi v. Directorate of Education in File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/108070; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The respondent submitted that the appellant has filed multiple queries seeking confirmation/ implementation of provisions under Central Acts. The RTI applications were timely disposed of and although the queries did not conform to the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, necessary clarification was provided with reference to extant guidelines and OMs in response to few of the RTI applications. The CIC observed that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO in all the second appeals, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that the RTI requests of the appellant do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the appellant had sought for answers/clarifications to speculative and hypothetical queries. Further, the CIC pointed to the appellant that as per the mandate of the RTI Act, outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. The Commission observed that 86 second appeals were disposed earlier arising out of RTI applications filed by the appellant before several public authorities wherein similar speculative and hypothetical queries were raised, calling for no relief under the Act. In addition, 18 appeals were disposed of in CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658048 & Ors, vide decision dated 25.07.2025. It is appalling that despite having scheduled multiple appeals for hearing with advance notice, the appellant failed to appear before the Commission, which has caused unwarranted loss of time and public resources. The CIC advised the Appellant to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed henceforth. The CIC held that the Respondent(s) are also at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future.
Comments
Repeated filing of RTI applications on identical issues causes a drain on the resources of the public authority. The observation by the CIC held that the Respondent(s) are at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future could provide relief to the DARPG.
Citation: Rajnish Ratnakar v. Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, econd Appeal No. CIC/DARPG/A/2024/ 658235 + 651529 + 651501 + 651490 + 651477 + 650798 + 650846 + 650819; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information in respect of election in Sri Ram CGHS Itd. was sought. The CIC noted that the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent. The CIC observed that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. The CIC issued an advisory u/s 25 (5) of the RTI Act to the Respondent Public Authority to provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal in view of principle of natural justice.
Comments
There is no specific provision in the RTI Act, 2005 which provides for a compulsory personal hearing before the first appellate authority. However, it would be incumbent upon the FAA to grant a personal hearing to the appellant if it has been sought. The principles of natural justice should be followed.
Citation: S K T Sherman v. O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies, File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/624441; Date of Decision: 18.08.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Mentioning his Aadhar Card Number, the appellant requested to provide a print of the ten fingers and thumb impressions taken on biometric. The PIO replied that the "core biometric information" has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Aadhaar Act and there is a clear prohibition under the law against sharing or using core biometrics for any reason whatsoever. The CIC held that appropriate response in keeping with the provisions of the law has been duly provided to the Appellant. The CIC further observed that since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
Comments
When a citizen seeks information which originates from him, the public authority can take the plea that the information is not “held” by it. However, in this case, the CIC has remained silent about section 22 of the RTI Act (Act to have overriding effect) and has preferred not to discuss which Act is supreme in case of inconsistencies between them.
Citation: Shri Suresh Chand Meena v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/638600; Date of Decision: 04.09.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought the date wise LTC Concession (Economy Class) air fare displayed on https://www.irctc.co.in/Portal between Mumbai and Varanasi for the Period 01st to 30th November 2021. The PIO replied that the Historical Airfare data of Airlines is not stored by IRCTC. The Airline fares are governed by Airlines and are very dynamic which may vary as per the seat availability at the time and date of booking. It is the duty of the person booking the ticket to take the screenshot of the comparative fares flashed on the screen at the time of booking the ticket, because it keeps on changing and it is not possible to recapitulate later on the same at the relevant time. The CIC observed that as far as RTI application is concerned, appropriate reply has been furnished by the Respondents and upheld the same. The Appellant made a prayer during the hearing to provide a certified copy of downloaded fares. In this regard, the CIC held that it is an extended relief claimed which has never been sought in the original RTI application and rejected the same.
Comments
It is seen that some government servants miss taking a screenshot of the comparative fares at the time of booking of the tickets. Such bills are struck up and there is little that the RTI Act can do to provide the historical data which is not stored.
Citation: Anjani Kumar Mishra v. IRCTC Ltd., File No: CIC/IRCTC/A/2024/109292; Date of Decision: 28.08.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought certified copy of compassionate appointment order, entire application process etc. of a third-party and the same was denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed of the first appeal hearing scheduled on 25.04.2024 vide letter dated 16.04.2024 but, he did not come for the hearing and has wrongly alleged in the instant second appeal that they did not allow him to appear in first appeal. The CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant and dismissed the appeal holding that no further intervention is required.
Comments
To make the RTI Act effective, both the appellant and the respondent should maintain transparency in their conduct.
Citation: D. K. Soni v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/SECFL/A/2024/117153; Date of Decision:05.12.2025.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information needed for resolution of a legal dispute
Appellant sought information about Foreign Currency payment made in Indian Rupees to the amount of INR 70,000 around October 1978. The SBI informed that the information could not be retrieved being 40 years old. The appellant argued that the proof of the averred remittance to her father was crucial in the light of a property dispute pending disposal before court of law. The CIC held that the issue for consideration before it is grant of relief as per the RTI Act and does not extended to the resolution of legal disputes.
Comments
It has been argued before the CIC that information needed for dispensation of justice should be provided as the same is in public interest. It has also been contended that till the destruction memo is produced, the responsibility of maintaining the records rests with the public authority.
Citation: Rajinder Kaur Johal v. State Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/122968; Date of Decision: 07.11.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information about allotment of lease and release from seizure of land comprising a particular GLR Survey No. was sought. The Directorate General Defence Estates replied that the Appellant mentioned incorrect date of application for allotment of lease in his RTI Application because of which the relevant information could not be provided to him and therefore, the Appellant was advised to file a fresh RTI Application in their office with correct date of application. The respondent added that First Appeal has been adjudicated on 31.05.2024 and the same has been taken on record. The Commission noted that the Appellant has willfully suppressed the replies provided by the CPIO and FAA while filing the instant Second Appeal. The CIC commented that the appellant has not approached the CIC with clean hands and his conduct is not appreciated.
Comments
The probability of obtaining the information sought increases if the conduct of the RTI applicant is transparent.
Citation: Chandra Kant Sonkar v. Directorate General Defence Estates, File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/118526; Date of Decision: 12.12.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Through four different RTI applications, the complainant sought different information from Bar Council of India such as the Audited accounts of the last 5 years of BCI, Compliance of section 4(1) of the RTI Act, the minutes of meeting of the Trustees, copy of the Income/Expenditure & Balance sheet, copy of the Bar Council of India Pearl Trust, Copies of the inspection report, Minutes of the meeting of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India etc. The CIC noted the vague reply and delay in responding to the RTI application and directed the PIO to submit a suitable explanation as to why no action should be initiated for the variations in their stance. In the other complaint, a notice was issued why action should be initiated for the vague and evasive reply which has not even been submitted before the CIC. Further in another complaint, the CIC issued a show cause notice Mr. Anil Kumar, PIO, BCI why penalty should not be levied upon him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not furnishing any response.
Comments
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is a statutory body established by the Parliament under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate and represent the Indian Bar. The BCI prescribes the standards of professional conduct and etiquettes and also set standards for legal education. If such a premier body fumbles in implementing section 4 of the RTI Act and is served a SCN for imposing penalty, the legal profession is in for a rude shock.
Citation: Girish Mittal v. Bar Council of India, CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/645329 + /652361 + /652362 + /652360: Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com