RTI Corner

Appellant sought to know about action taken against Private Aided / Grant-in Aid Colleges affiliated to the Andhra University for not implementing the UGC Regulations, 2018. The PIO explained during the hearing that the UGC is not the authority to take any action as this will be done by the University or the State Government who have to ensure implementation of the regulations. The PIO submitted that the UGC Guidelines, 2018 are mandatory in nature and cannot be overlooked. The CIC held that the order is incomplete as there is no categorical reply to the point raised by the appellant as to what action has been taken against those Private Aided / Grant-in Aid Colleges affiliated to the Andhra University who have not implemented the UGC Regulations, 2018. During the hearing, the CPIO explained that there is no procedure in the UGC Regulations to penalize any college. It is the concerned University with which the College is affiliated or the State Government who has to keep a check on the Colleges and UGC has no role to play in this. The CIC held that incomplete information has been provided and directed the PIO to provide an additional reply to the appellant in the same way as was explained by him during the hearing.
Comments
As the overall regulatory body, the UGC has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the quality of education in the country. The submissions made on behalf of the UGC show that it does not have any direct powers to take penal action against the colleges who do not follow the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Citation: Jagannadha K Galinkala v. University Grants Commission (UGC) in File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/661349, Date of Decision: 07/09/2020
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 from DRDL if a particular post comes under new pension scheme or old pension scheme and criteria for placing the selected candidates in New or Old Pensions Scheme. The CIC observed that the Appellant has not made any allegations of human rights violation or corruption in his RTI Application, First Appeal or Second Appeal regarding information about the pension scheme. Adverting to the allegations of human rights violation urged by the advocate of the Appellant during hearing as well as in his written submissions dated 18.07.2020 & 20.07.2020 with respect to the pension scheme, the CIC held that no violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.
Comments
The expression “Human Rights’’ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. The expression “Human Rights” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 means "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India". The expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters of persons working under schedule II organisation.
Citation: G Laxminarayana v. Defence Research & Development Laboratory in File No : CIC/DRADO/A/2018/162164, Date of Decision: 20/07/2020
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 about Shram Suvidha cases was denied by the PIO citing 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act without any explanation. The CIC held that the reply was incomplete as merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a PIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. In order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the PIO is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed which was not done. The CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the PIO for his failure to give a proper and complete reply and issued a strict warning to the concerned PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications.
Comments
There are a large number of cases where the PIO or FAA are not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act perhaps due to ignorance of law. In many cases before the CIC, the CIC has directed the Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to educate the concerned officials including the PIOs and the FAAs about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities so that such avoidable lapses do not occur again in future.
Citation: O Y Sankar Reddy v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation in File No.: CIC/EPFOG/C/2019/114953, Date of Decision: 26/08/2020
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

An application was filed under the RTI Act before PIO, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior seeking information about how many containers were declared as inferior, which were tested by Govt. opium and Alkaloid factory Ghazipur and Neemuch. The applicant also sought information about the analytical particulars of each inferior container in the first test and second test. An appeal was filed to the CIC stating that the complete information of all the divisions has not provided. The respondent submitted that the information sought pertains to 17 different divisions having individual PIOs and is not available in a compiled form at a single point in the manner sought by the appellant. Nonetheless, they have furnished him some information after an arduous task of compilation. The CIC observed that the information sought by the appellant pertains to 17 different divisions having separate PIOs and therefore, it is very wide and general in nature which requires compilation from extensive records of each division. The PIO could not be asked to compile such data.
Comments
Under the RTI Act, the PIO is expected to provide the information which is available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it, unless he is required to maintain it as per law.
Citation: Onkar Lal Jat v. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Second Appeal No. CIC/MOFIN/A/2018/134718/DOREV, Date: 03-07-2020
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 about rotational Transfer of Assistant Engineers (QA) of Ammunition Discipline in the year 2017 and 2018 and correspondence made. The PIO referred to Section 8(2) of RTI Act to deny the information quoting the Official Secrets Act. The CIC held that the PIO has erred in interpreting Section 8(2) of RTI Act and directed the PIO to ensure that he acquaints himself well with the provisions of RTI Act.
Comments
According to Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with section 8(1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Thus, section 8(2) is a non-obstante clause which seeks to override the inconsistent provisions contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which is further evinced from Section 22 of RTI Act. Section 22 says that the provisions of RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force.
Citation: Pradeep Gajanan Errum v. Ministry of Defence (DGQA) in File No: CIC/DGOQA/A/2018/634294, Date of Decision: 23/07/2020
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 regarding a recruitment rally conducted by the Punjab Regimental Centre, Ramgarh Cantt. Jharkhand from the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh. The Appellant was aggrieved with the fact that the Respondent office did not transfer the RTI Application to the concerned public authority and that CPIO replied on the RTI Application only after expiry of the 30 day time period and two days after First Appeal was filed, and that too for returning the RTI Application. The CIC observed that by his own admission, the Appellant was aware that the information sought pertained to Punjab Regimental Centre, yet he filed the RTI Application with a completely unrelated public authority i.e the Respondent office, Cantonment Board, Ramgarh. The CIC did not find any scope for intervention in the reply of the PIO reply and condoned the delay in replying on the RTI Application while disposing the appeal.
Comments
Section 6(1)(a) of RTI Act provides that the RTI Application should be filed to the concerned public authority. The act put an onus on the applicant to file the application to the concerned authority if he knows who is holding the information. An applicant should not file an application to anyone expecting that he would find the right public authority and would transfer the RTI Application to the relevant public authority under section 6(3).
Citation: Rahul Kumar v. Cantonment Board in File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/163631, Date of Decision: 22/07/2020
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 pertaining to sanction of prosecution against the appellant by his department on CVC’s advice, was denied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that a charge sheet has been filed against him in ACB Court, Kota in August 2016, and hence, the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) will not apply in the case because the investigation has been completed. The PIO agreed to abide by the CIC’s verdict. The denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) in the matter was rejected by the CIC.
Comments
There has been a contradictory view regarding disclosure of documents relating to a vigilance inquiry after the charge sheet has been filed while the enquiry is still pending. Whenever the information is denied u/s 8(1)(h), the PIO must inform how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It is not merely a perception or an assumption, but a burden on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the process.
Citation: Manvendra Singh Raghav v. Central Vigilance Commission in File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/164901, Date of Decision: 06/07/2020.
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 was denied cashless treatment by Fortis Hospital, Mohali and he lodged lodged a complaint for taking strict action against the Hospital. However, no response was received on his Complaint. Appellant sought the present position of his complaint and action taken against Fortis Hospital for allegedly playing with the life of a Senior Citizen. The PIO, CGHS feigned ignorance of the matter during the hearing and was unable to respond to the queries raised by the Complainant as well as the CIC. The CIC cautioned the PIO over his casual and callous approach and his ill-preparedness. The CIC instructed the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to examine the matter and fix responsibility and accountability on the delinquent officer for not responding to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, and submit its report within a period of 30 days.
Comments
There have been complaints against hospitals approved by CGHS claiming that they are not providing the facility to the patients as per norms. This case provides a possible way by which the DGHS may be forced to deal with the situation.
Citation: Mr. D. C. Gupta v. C.G.H.S. in Complaint No.:- CIC/CGHSD/C/2018/159391-BJ, Date of Decision : 13.07.2020
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 pertaining to service details of her husband, in terms of pay slip, last pay certificate etc. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, as she continues to be the wife of the individual regarding whom information has been sought. She further stated that on sl. No. 4 of the document sought in the instant RTI Application “nomination for PRIC benefit AFGIS – 224” she has not affixed her finger print and the individual has got the finger print of some unknown person affixed on the same which amounts to fraud. The CIC directed the PIO to process the RTI Application as per the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009, it was held that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted. Further, the gross pay of an officer is liable to be disclosed under section 4(1)(b)(x) suo-motu under the RTI Act.
Citation: Chidipothu Sarada v. Indian Air Force in File No: CIC/IAIRF/A/2018/154519, Date of Decision : 10/06/2020
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 explained that he is the owner of the 1st floor in a building and an alleged illegal construction has been carried out on top of the 2nd floor, which renders the building unsafe and risky. He filed a complaint and later through an application under the RTI Act, sought the action taken with regards to stop the unauthorized construction report. As he was not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, he filed an appeal and the FAA vide order dated 15.06.2018 directed the PIO to provide a modified reply within 15 days. The PIO complied with the order of the FAA after an inordinate delay of almost 2 years. The appellant submitted that the illegal construction was in the initial stages i.e., only brick-work was started and presently, the unauthorized construction of the alleged illegal building has been completed. The CIC directed the PIO to submit an explanation as to why the order of the FAA was not complied within the stipulated time period. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide an action taken report with regard to the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction after ascertaining the position from SHO.
Comments
Unauthorised construction is rampant throughout the country and this case law shows how a common citizen can use it to his benefit.
Citation: Shri Yogesh Agarwal v. PIO/EE (Bldg.-II), West Zone, SDMC, New Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCW/A/2018/144543, Date of Decision: 12.06.2020
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 regarding the copy of the Rule under which two conditions were imposed on the Defence Assistant which led to the withdrawal of his Defence Assistant from his case along with other information claiming that they related to allegation of corruption and human rights violation. He submitted that the information was wrongly and malafidely denied by the Cabinet Secretariat on the pretext of the Organization being exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that the copies of his APAR were also not provided to him violating his basic fundamental rights. The CIC observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. The CIC directed the FAA to re-examine the queries of the RTI application and furnish a clear, cogent, precise reply along with the copy of his own APAR to the Appellant within a period of 30 days. The CIC also instructed the Cabinet Secretariat 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.
Comments
It is sometimes seen that RTI applications are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. On many occasions the CIC has expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Public Authorities in responding to the RTI application which is against the spirit of the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Dev Raj Singh v. Cabinet Secretariat in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CABST/A/2018/162403-BJDate of Decision : 12.06.2020
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.co

The Complainant sought the district wise details of the hospitals and healthcare facilities designated as COVID-19 treatment centres; address and telephone numbers; criteria for designating them as COVID-19 treatment centres; hospitals and healthcare facilities whose status as COVID 19 treatment centres was withdrawn, etc. Explaining that the information sought was in the larger public interest directly pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Complainant submitted that the suo motu disclosure of information would immensely benefit the patients for taking timely action. Similarly, a non-COVID-19 patient could avoid approaching the hospitals designated as COVID-19 treatment centres. The Complainant submitted that the since the consolidated district wise information of COVID-19 treatment centres was not available in the public domain or the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of Health Services or the Indian Council of Medical Research, he was constrained to file an RTI application and subsequently the instant Complaint since it is a matter pertaining to life and liberty of citizens.
The CIC was appalled to learn this basic information could not be provided to the information seeker by any of the Respondents. The CIC further observed that the information sought ought to have been suo motu disclosed on the website of the Public Authority at the outset so as to obviate the necessity for an information seeker to obtain the same through an RTI application. The CIC observed that the decisions themselves and the senior decision makers involved are thoroughly documented in order for the Governments to remain accountable both during and after the crisis for future generations to be able to learn from these actions. The CIC issued an advisory to the Secretary, M/o H&FW to designate an officer of an appropriate seniority as a Nodal Officer to examine the matter and suo motu disclose the information sought in the RTI application on the website of the Public Authority within a period of 15 days in the larger public interest.
Comments
India is known as a software power and it would be quite easy to have a consolidated district wise data of Covid facilities and their mapping om Google Maps for the benefit of the citizens. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Venkatesh Nayak v. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, DGHS, Department of Health & Family Welfare in Complaint No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2020/668909-BJ + CIC/DTGHS/C/2020/668913-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.06.2020
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.co