RTI Corner

The Appellant sought copy of the file noting with comments of DGMS (Navy) staff relating to his transfer to HQ 8 Mtn Div as DADH. The PIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act claiming that the file noting(s) on which the postings have been discussed is likely to contain the profile, specialisation, past appointments and likely future employability of officers including the location and operational status of the units concerned. It was argued that these noting(s) would also contain details of more than one officer as a chain transfer is normally effected. The advocate of the Appellant stated that the Appellant only wants to know the circumstances under which his particular transfer was effected. He also clarified that the Appellant does not want any security or deployment details or information about transfer of other officers but only the noting of DGMS(Navy) relating to his transfer. The CIC allowed the disclosure of information after applying severability. The specific portion where Appellant’s transfer has been deliberated upon was directed to be provided will be provided. The specific information related to security and personal information of other officers was to be blackened out.
Comments
When an applicant raises a very limited request seeking to only know the circumstances under which he was transferred, it is not appropriate to deny the limited information by citing the larger picture of security in a generic manner.
Citation: Rajesh Batlish v. Integrated HQ M/o Defence (Navy) in File No. : CIC/INAVY/A/2017/103441/SD; Date of Decision: 31/08/2017

Information about the Service Associations/Federations recognized by CBEC and their renewal was sought. With regard to the delay in furnishing the reply, the respondnet informed that consequent upon the announcement of GST and related development concerning restructuring of the department, it was not feasible to furnish the information within the specific time period and apologized for the delay. The CIC observed that a voluntary disclosure of all the information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of the public who having to seek information should be an exception. The CIC directed that all information relating to the registration of Service Associations, Federations/their Service Rules etc. should be placed in the public domain to facilitate dissemination of information to the public at large.
Comments
The suo moto disclosure of all the information in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 should be made to ensure transparency, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority.
Citation:: :Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. Central Board of Excise and Customs in Appeal No.:-CIC/CBECE/A/2017/133860-BJ; Date of Decision: 17.08.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant sought particulars of the officials entrusted with the duty to publish and disseminate the rules on disciplinary action and human resource policy manual; the date(s) on which the above said rules and policy manual were published and the administrative reason for not disseminating these rules on the website of IIM, Ahmedabad. The PIO stated that the IIM, Ahmedabad was a single location building and the HR department was accessible to all the employees. All such type of rules were available with the HR department and was accessible to all the employees on demand. He added that the institute followed an informal way of working and since all rules and policy/s related to the employees were easily accessible to them at HR department, there was no need to put these documents on department’s website. Keeping in view the objective of bringing about transparency and accountability, the CIC directed the CPIO to put the rules on disciplinary action and human resource policy manual on the department’s website u/s 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
It is strange to note that the leading management institute does not put human resource policy in public domain. This CIC order would propel all the institutes to put their disciplinary rules and policies on its website.
Citation:: : Shri Ketan Bhatt v. IIM, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/002317/MP, Date of Decision: August 10, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant sought information regarding the note-sheet concerning the amount of honorarium for those who were involved in a particular project and also the promotional post of Xerox Operator. The FAA stated that partial information post 2011 including inspection of the files has been provided to the appellant. The CIC directed to conduct an enquiry to examine the cause behind the six missing pages in the file no. A. 12025/6/95-GAS. The CIC further directed that the enquiry report should be submitted before the Commission within three weeks.
Comments
It is the duty of the public authority to maintain its records and failure to do so may lead to penal proceedings against those who are responsible for the safe keeping of the records. Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against an individual for destroying any information.
Citation:: Jabardeen v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in F. No.CIC/NIHFW/C/2017/118524 F. No. CIC/YA/A/2016/002118, Date of Decision: 20.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

An application was filed by the Appellant under the RTI Act seeking information on two points regarding documents concerning disposal of his appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The Respondents submitted that the information sought was regarding the notings concerning disposal of the above appeal by the Appellate Committee and the comments etc. made on the appeal by the above committee. The Respondents stated that the above information cannot be provided as these are internal documents of the bank. The CIC ruled that there was no ground to invoke Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to deny the information in this case. Since the disciplinary proceedings are over, there is no ground to deny the information sought by the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the information, free of charge, within twenty days of the receipt of the order, under intimation to the Commission.
Comments
On the question of disclosure of the note-sheet of the vigilance files, there have been a series of orders of the CIC which are inconsistent with each other.
Citation:: Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta v. UCO Bank in File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001227, Date of decision: 19th July 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant filed an application under the RTI Act before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking information on the action taken on his representation dated 27.08.2011 addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner. The PIO informed that due to oversight, the action taken on the appellant’s representation dated 25.08.2011 instead of 27.08.2011 was provided. The respondent tendered her unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The CIC noted that correct information has not been provided. Taking a serious note of this lapse, the CIC counselled the PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. Further, the CIC directed the respondent to provide the action taken on the appellant’s representation dated 27.08.2011 to him within a period of four weeks.
Comments
In case of multiple correspondence from an applicant, the PIO must exercise due care to ensure that what has been sought is being provided. Such a mistake is likely in case of an applicant seeking information through multiple RTI applications.
Citation: Shri Deep Chandra Sharma v. Central Information Commission Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001157 Dated 05.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The Appellant sought information regarding the certified documents related to the action taken on his email. The Respondent explained during the hearing that all the documents pertaining to the service records of the Appellant had been transferred to the Regional Office, Ahmedabad soon after his transfer to the said office and therefore, no records were available at their Amravati Branch office. The CIC held that the respondent could not substantiate or justify the reason for not providing the response as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that the First Appeal had also not been heard and decided by the concerned FAA. The CIC expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. The CIC instructed the PIO and the FAA to show-cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission also directed the FAA to explain why the First Appeal was not responded till date.
Comments
In many case, it is seen that RTI matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. In some instances in the past, the CIC has directed the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The public authorities must conduct regular trainings to ensure that the PIO’s do not end up facing penal proceedings.
Citation: Mr. B L Gangwani v. National Insurance Company Limited in Appeal No.:-CIC/MP/A/2016/001574-BJ; Date of Decision : 06.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant prayed before the CIC that the Unit Run CSD Canteen may be declared as a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent submitted that Unit Run Canteens (URCs) were established with the purpose of providing consumable stores to the Defence personnel at a price cheaper than the market as a welfare measure. They are run by the funds of the formation/unit which are Regimental funds created through contributions from the defence personnel as per statutory rules provided in service regulations. The Respondent categorically stated that URCs are in no way funded by the Government or from the Consolidated Fund of India. The URCs pay rent and allied charge at prescribed rates for utilisation of premises and other services. The URCs are managed through a Standard Operating Procedure formulated by the URC management Committee. The CIC observed that the URC is not a creature of statute. The URCs are run by Regimental Funds which has been held by the Courts to be non-public fund. The Government does not exercise any direct or indirect control over it. The three-fold test of Creation, Finance and Control of an organization as outlined in the definition clause of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act is not established.
Comments
In the case of R R Pillai, the Apex Court had held that URCs are purely private ventures and their employees are at no stretch of imagination employees of the Government or CSD. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the Central Government to provide canteen services to its employees. The profit generated from URCs are not credited to the consolidated fund but are distributed to the non-public funds which are used by the units for the welfare of the troops.
Citation: Shri Daya Shankar Shukla and others v. Ministry of Defence in F. No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000665 CIC/LS/A/2013/001914 CIC/RM/A/2013/001287 Date of Order : 25.05.2016, 15.03.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The services of the appellant along with two others were terminated from the Central University Jharkhand (CUJ) by its Second Executive Council vide Resolution dated 14.09.2013. This group of terminated employees of CUJ together with others had been making complaints to various authorities seeking to declare the constitution of 2nd Executive council as illegal. They had together filed around 450 RTI applications (online) and 400 appeals (online) under RTI Act, 2005. All these applications sought information on alleged corruption in the CUJ, Constitution of Second Executive Council (EC) of the CUJ, amendment to the statute relating to EC, fund release to the CUJ etc. The appellant informed the Commission that he had been reinstated and he did not have any complaint against the CUJ. He further stated that the CUJ authorities had taken proactive steps to provide him the information that he sought and requested the Commission to allow him to withdraw all his appeals listed to be heard on 20.04.2017. The CIC allowed him to withdraw the appeals.
Comments
The case highlights how the RTI Act has been used by an employee to get his job back. However, the CIC appears to have been (mis)used in the matter as the alleged corruption in CUJ remains under wrap. If the information sought was not exempt, shouldn’t the CIC asked for putting up all the information on the website?
Citation: Shri Kumar Pankaj Anand v. Ministry of Human Resource Development in CIC/SA/A/2015/901302/MP, Date of Decision: 08th June, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The Appellant sought information regarding certified copy of the complete file of compliance pertaining to complaint filed against an Appraising Officer of Customs, certified copy of factual report on findings of a certain inquiry, certified copies of IPR filed by certain officers and issues related thereto. The FAA denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act stating that a mere suspicion could not constitute the basis of public interest. It was further stated that consent of the four officers about whom the Appellant had sought details was sought who had objected to the same under Section-11 of the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC upheld the denial of information.
Comments
The passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. Only when the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority is expected to disclose the information.
Citation: Mr. Bandhagit Nadaf v. Central Excise & Customs in Appeal No.:-CIC/SB/A/2016/001225-BJ; Date of Decision: 23.05.2017

A complaint was filed with the CIC alleging that the information sought was not provided and the complainant’s RTI application was transferred to several CPIOs who did not revert in a positive way. The CIC advised the public authority to desist from these kinds of practices which defeats the very purpose and motive of the RTI Act.
Comments
It is a common practice in the headquarters of many organisations to transfer the RTI applications received at their end to different sub-ordinate offices carelessly. Such a blind redirection of the RTI applications needs to be curbed as the same is not envisaged under the Act.
Citation: Deepak Narayan Singh v. PIO, M/o Labour & Employment in CIC/BS/C/2014/000328, Decided on: 12.04.2017
Weekly article by Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in), RTI Consultant to IIM, Indore. Her other articles can be read at https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/(dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in), RTI Consultant to IIM, Indore and Co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO's Guide to RTI by Taxmann. (The views are Personal)