RTI Corner

The appellant had sought a copy of the report submitted by the Government of Maharashtra regarding investigation of 7/11 bomb blast case at Mumbai. The appellant further sought a copy of the report/dossier submitted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year2009 regarding investigation of Indian Mujahideen group related to 7/11 bomb blast case. The appellant emphasized that the disclosure of the information sought for would serve the purpose of larger public interest as the disclosure would ensure justice to the innocent.
The State Govt. of Maharashtra declined to provide the information to the appellant on the ground that the Anti-Terrorist Squad was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that investigation in the matter was ongoing since 15-20 accused including foreign nationals are yet to be arrested. Thus, the disclosure of information was not warranted in accordance with Section 8 (1) (h) and Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act since access of information by the public including the perpetrators of the offence can prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation. The CIC ruled that keeping in view the sensitivities involved in the matter as also the factual position narrated by the respondent, no further intervention is warranted.
Comments
In case of taking a decision about disclosure of investigation findings, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ajay Madhusudan Marathe v. Sanjukta Ray and Ors, W.P. (C) 1464/2013 Decided On: 05.03.2013 would be relevant. It was held that the area in respect of which information is sought, could have security implications and the judgment in this regard is best left to the wisdom of the agencies concerned, who are tasked with the responsibility of sifting such information and thereafter arriving at a conclusion one way or the other.
Citation: Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, O/o Internal Security, Division-I (IS VI Desk), Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166137, Date 31.07.2019.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding the dates and value of debit of certain DEPB License was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act claiming that the third party had objected to the disclosure of information. The CIC referred to Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, as per which where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the PIO is expected to communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Third Party submitted that the Appellant was mis-utilizing the RTI forum to settle his personal disputes. It was further stated that the Company had many overseas clients and if the information was provided then there was a possibility of misappropriation of information for the personal benefit of the Appellant which could cause numerous litigation between the directors and overseas clients. Moreover at the time of filing the RTI application, the Appellant was a disqualified Director not holding any post in the Company. The CIC held that the mere claim of the Customs that the third party had denied the disclosure of information cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, the Delhi High Court held that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act, the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case. Hence, a PIO should be careful while passing an order and ensure that a speaking order is passed which gives due justification for denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Dipak S. Mehta v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Import – II) New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCUM1/A/2018/166143-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.07.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought attested copies of certain Office Memorandum through separate RTI applications. The PIO, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare, denied the disclosure of information on the ground that the information sought are not readily available in the Office of the PIO and that the OMs were incorporated in the Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Attendance Rules, which could be used as a reference book. During the hearing before the CIC, it was reiterated that in his RTI applications, the Appellant himself had made reference to the Swamy’s Compilation on Medical Attendance wherein all the notifications of the Office Memorandums were already mentioned and that they used the aforementioned compilation for their internal purposes as well. On being queried by the CIC regarding the process for record keeping / compilation of the documents sought in the RTI application at the Ministerial level through a Nodal Officer and its periodic updation with clarifications, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondents who submitted that being very old records several OMs/ Notifications were not available at this distant date. The CIC felt that there was an urgent need to develop a robust system of record keeping in the Respondent Public Authority and to review its efficaciousness periodically. The CIC further noted that the position of Nodal Officer in a Public Authority is created in order to ensure timely and precise response on the RTI applications where information is scattered and multiple Divisions / Departments are involved. It was felt that there was lack of coordination between Public Authority Officials present during the hearing on the issue of custodian of information which ultimately impedes the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC also referred to the OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14.11.2007 wherein while prescribing for creation of a nodal authority for dealing with RTI applications. In the larger public interest, the CIC advised the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to appoint a Nodal Officer for the compilation and collation of all available OMs / Notifications issued in the form of a compendium for ready reference of all concerned and to facilitate expeditious reply to the RTI application.
Comments
OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14.11.2007 calls upon all the public authorities with more than one PIO to create a central point within the organisation where all the RTI applications and the appeals addressed to the First Appellate Authorities may be received. It would aid in quick disposal of the RTI applications.
Citation: Mr. Pradeep Kumar v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623283-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623300-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623306-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623311-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/623315-BJ+ CIC/MOHFW/A/2018/624303-BJ, Date of Decision : 05.07.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information regarding documents relating to SEBI giving permission or objecting to NSE’s decision to allow RPL shares to be listed in the forward section of the market for the speculation at the time of listing of the IPO of RPL when the company was years away from commercial production and related information. The PIO provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA who concurred with the reply of the PIO. While seeking a copy of the written submissions made by SEBI to CIC, the Appellant prayed to either allow him to file his rejoinder against the same or discard the submissions made by the Respondent. The CIC advised the Respondent to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well. It was further advised that all such submissions placed before the Commission should invariably be endorsed to the Appellant beforehand for his ready reference unless otherwise notified as “Confidential”.
Comments
Though the RTI Act does not explicitly provide for giving to the appellant, the copies of the submission made by the respondent to the CIC, it is a common practice followed in all judicial forums. It would reduce the time needed by the appellant to respond to the submissions and thereby lead to early closure of the case.
Citation: Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Securities & Exchange Board of India in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SEBIE/A/2018/102201-BJ, Date of Decision: 31.05.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought certified copies of complete documents based on which details relating to his employee code were entered in the SECL record. He alleged that the Date of Birth entered in his service record is 1956 instead of 1966, hence, he had to retire early from his services. The appellant filed a second appeal before the CIC on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information sought for by him stating that no such documents are available. The CIC observed that as per the respondent, the documents sought by the appellant cannot be retrieved since the same are not available in the records of the respondent authority. The CIC directed the respondent to file an affidavit with it deposing that the records, on the basis of which the NEIS data relating to the appellant was generated, are not available with respondent. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant. A copy of the affidavit was directed to be provided to the appellant.
Comments
There have been many instances, including some high profile ones, where superannuation has been challenged on the basis of second set of birth documents. The proper maintenance of records by the authorities can avoid such controversies.
Citation: Mool Singh v. CPIO, Western Coalfields Limited in Second Appeal No. CIC/WCLTD/A/2017/163501, Date 16.04.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Complainant sought information regarding the details of criminal case registered against certain officers by Anti-Corruption wing of Central Bureau of Investigation. The representative of PIO regretted the exemption of Section 24 of RTI Act invoked by the PIO but went on to justify the denial under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act by claiming that although the investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed, the prosecution is still pending. The CIC admonished the representative of PIO for tendering feeble explanation without understanding the scope and ambit of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. The CIC also reprimanded the PIO to have failed to gauge his conscience regarding the clear allegation of corruption referred in the RTI Application while taking the refuge of Section 24 of RTI Act. The PIO was warned to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 of RTI Act and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies for all cases alike in future. The CIC noted that the PIO does not mention his name in the replies which further reflects on the prima-facie evasive and callous approach of the PIO in owning up to his acts of omission and commission. The PIO was directed to ensure in future that all correspondences sent under RTI Act by him should bear his name. A copy of the order was marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse remarks of the CIC and to look into the manner in which the PIO appears to be dodging request for information under the garb of Section 24 of RTI Act.
Comments
The CIC observed that the conduct of the PIO is reflective of his gross non-application of mind and irrational approach towards the letter and spirit of RTI Act. It is a wakeup call for the PIO’s to take a notice and not resort to cyclostyled replies to RTI queires.
Citation: B Bharathi v. CPIO, Head of Branch Central Bureau of Investigation in File No : CIC/CBRUI/C/2017/175974/SD, Date of Decision: 06/02/2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought a copy of the Techno Economic Feasibility Report for two underpasses on Pune Daund railway line by box pushing technology were sought from RITES Ltd.. The PIO informed the appellant that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and disclosure may cause irreparable commercial detriment of intellectual property rights of RITES Ltd. The CIC upheld the denial of information.
Comments
The Techno Economic Feasibility Report and related documents including surveys, materials considered for preparation a conclusion of the report, structural designs, etc may lead to divestment of intellectual property rights of RITES Ltd.. Further, the documents are held by the City Corporation Ltd., Pune in fiduciary capacity. There have been frequent RTI applications seeking information about the tender document and this case law would prove handy to deal with such instances.
Citation: Makarand Narayan Joshi v. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India in Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/183447/00585, Date of Decision: 06.05.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought information regarding the elections held at Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI such as the copies of the explanations demanded by Secretary, ICAI from the returning officer while enquiring about his misbehaviour in conduction of election of Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI along with copies of the clarifications given by the returning officer. The CIC observed that an improper reply has been provided to the appellant as in the reply of the CPIO, it has been stated that “since the re-poll was held at Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI, no action in the matter was required”. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply and was cautioned to remain careful while providing replies under the RTI Act.
Comments
Not only the general elections, but the elections of other public authorities have been the subject of RTI applications. While replying to an application, the PIO must address the specific issue raised by the applicant.
Citation: Makarand Narayan Joshi v. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India in Decision no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/183447/00585, Date of Decision: 06.05.2019
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 toRTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding the action taken report on a representation addressed to the Chief Engineer, CPWD, copy of note sheets of the proceedings, copy of enquiry report, if any conducted along with the certified copy of report etc. was denied to the appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the CPWD to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
Comments
The limited scope of examination by the CIC is whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. The CIC is not a body for grievance redressal.
Citation: Ms. Mithila Rai v. CPIO and Chief Executive Engineer and Vigilance Unit, CPWD in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CPWEH/A/2017/116001-BJ + CIC/CPWEH/A/2017/147342-BJ, Date of Decision: 08.02.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant filed RTI application seeking information on plan posts, non-plan posts, policy of UGC for the positions sanctioned under the scheme for the establishment centre for the study of social exclusion and inclusive policy regarding their extension from one plan to another etc. Multiple hearings were scheduled before the CIC in which interim orders were passed. The PIO submitted that due to her poor health condition she was not able to attend the Commission’s hearing on 13.02.2019. On a query by the CIC, she could not explain why the CIC order dated 02.01.2017 was not complied with by her on time. She further submitted that she is retiring from service on 31.03.2019 and in a similar case, a penalty of Rs 25,000 has already been imposed on her vide CIC order dated 13.02.2019 in case no. CIC/SA/A/2015/002095/00003/VN which she has paid already. The CIC observed that the PIO is on the verge of retirement but still did not understand the literal meaning of the order of the CIC, which is a matter of concern for the UGC. The Commission observed that the PIO was already penalised for non compliance of a CIC order and therefore, imposing penalty on her would literally amount to double jeopardy.
Comments
The objectives of the RTI Act is to ensure timely supply of relevant information to the appellant and imposing penalty bring no reform, until and unless the public authority authorities evolve a system to monitor and improve the system of disposal of the RTI applications.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information regarding tariff chart for parking of cars at Terminal 2 Delhi Airport. The PIO submitted that DIAL is a private authority and is entrusted with the responsibility of looking after all operational matters etc. of IGI Airport and therefore it is free to fix tariff as per Chapter XII of the DIAL Operation, Management and Development Agreement. He referred the RTI Application to Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) under Section 6(3) of RTI Act while mentioning in the same letter that DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act. The CIC took grave exception to the reply of the CPIO observing it as absurd and admonishes the CPIO for his gross non-application of mind in dealing with the RTI Application. The CIC noted that Ministry of Civil Aviation has regulatory powers over all airports in India. The CIC held that if the PIO maintains that DIAL looks after all operational matters of IGI Airport, the Ministry of Civil Aviation should be in a position to access the information from DIAL if the same is not available with their office.
Comments
If DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act, by implication Section 6(3) of the RTI Act has no applicability for the said authority. The definition of information under the RTI Act is wide. Under section 2(f), “information” means not only any material in any form held by the public authority but also any information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding the list of pensioners, who are receiving pension from Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration under jurisdiction of Pay and Accounts Office Code 071383, issued by CGHS card in CGHS covered cities across India as also the list along with their details such as names, designation, CGHS card number, date of issue, etc. was sought . The Respondent expressed his inability to address the issues raised by the Appellant and stated that since issuance of CGHS cards was decentralized, no specific data was available with them. The CIC noted that the DoPT constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. The CIC expressed serious concern about the state of recordkeeping within the CGHS and directed the Director, CGHS to depute a team of officials to enquire into the entire matter and provide information to the Appellant. The CIC directed that a comprehensive and robust policy for digitization of its records to be evolved and implemented within a time bound manner for the ease and convenience of all concerned.
Comments
The implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act remains a dream which is yet to be realised in most of the government departments. The Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India had constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. As a part of this Task Force, a sub group on ‘Guidelines for Digital Publication under RTI supporting Proactive Disclosure of Information’ held a one day consultation on ‘Formulating guidelines for digital publication under RTI supporting proactive disclosure of information’. Hopefully, the departments should start implementing the same in the right earnest.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/