RTI Corner

The appellant asked for a certified copy of the RNI Registration Certificate of "Dominican Ashram" vide Registration No. 46971/88. Before the CIC, the Appellant stated that the information has not been provided to him and it was wrongly denied by the then PIO ignoring the fact that it is a public document. The Respondent submitted that the registration certificate of registered newspapers are in public domain which can be easily accessed from their official website https://prgi.nic.in/registration-title-data-details/. During the hearing before the CIC, the Respondent opened the link on the computer system of the Bench and showed the e-certificate and also handed over a hard copy of e-certificate to the Appellant which was taken on record. The CIC held that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent to the Appellant during hearing which is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be thorough with the content accessible on the website of the organization failing which errors may be committed or, time may be spent on making available an information which has already been made public.
Citation: Jose Abraham v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/609589; 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 Appellant filed sought the list of petrol pump functioning in the urban area of district Bareilly. Further, he asked about the land requirements with layout of one Pump, the details of pumps which not fulfilled the land requirements and related information. The PIO denied the information holding that the appellant has not disclosed the public interest warranting disclosure of such an information. The CIC observed that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and directed the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point-wise reply as available in their records. The CIC strongly recommended the IOCL to explore the viability of maintaining such information on their official website pertaining to list of petrol pumps functioning all over India and related issues regarding land requirement/measurement for allotment of petrol pump.
Comments
Making the information available in the public domain proactively is in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo-motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.
Citation: Shri Anand Singh Chauhan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), CIC/IOCLD/A/2023/626935; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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 enquiry findings in relation to the complaints filed by her and her husband. The Respondent stated that it has been informed to the Appellant that since a court case filed by her is pending before the Court of Law, therefore, inquiry in her complaint was put on hold awaiting the final verdict of the law. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied on the ground that matter is sub-judice before Court of Law. She contended that no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court for non-disclosure of any information and the subject matter before Court of law relates to pay fixation while she through instant RTI application sought action taken report on her complaint of harassment by the concerned teacher. The CIC held that the initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know. The CIC observed that the only pertinent exemption from disclosure appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act. The PIO was directed to provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her and also advised to exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications.
Comments
The matter being sub-judice is not a valid ground for denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Seema Gupta v. Office of the Deputy Director of Education, File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/609275; 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

Three registered post envelopes were returned to the sender (District Judge) without being delivered. With reference to three registered postal envelopes which were returned without affixing any remark on the envelopes, the appellant requested to provide the reasons for return. The Department of Post submitted that the three registered articles, referred to in the RTI application, were returned with remarks “receiver not at address”. Further, it was submitted that the reply sent in response to the RTI application was inadvertently sent at the incorrect address, hence, could not be timely delivered. However, on receipt of the return mail, they rectified the address and communicated the information to the appellant on 09.02.2024. The CIC observed that the respondent initially replied on 14.12.2023 but the same was not delivered timely to the appellant due to incorrect address. The CIC accepted the clarification provided by the PIO that the delay in response to the RTI application was inadvertent and had occurred on account of incorrect address being mentioned in the dispatch letter. Holding that due information has been furnished and the delay caused on the PIO’s part does not appear to be deliberate, the CIC disposed the appeal.
Comments
If the delay in reply by the PIO is unintentional and due to an inadvertent error, there is no penal liability as there is no malafide denial of information.
Citation: Sardar Ajit Singh v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/112391; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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 had worked on deputation for three years with CONCOR and sought information about the Foreign Service Contribution (FSC) due to which payment of his gratuity had been stopped. The PIO replied that the applicant may seek the information from the concerned Railway Administration and the detailed response can be obtained by the applicant from the concerned East Central Railway. The CIC observed that the denial of information by the PIO on both the points of RTI Application in one liner without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act depicts that this case has been handled badly which is contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. Observing that the PIO is expected to have applied her mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC commented that “This reply is as bad as possible”. The CIC held that inaction on the part of then CPIO and the present CPIO is prima facie established. As the then PIO had superannuated, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the present PIO for imposing penalty. Further, the Respondent was directed to re-examine the contents of RTI Application and provide a point-wise revised updated reply against all the points.
Comments
It is observed that some PIO’s try to wash their hands off by giving vague or terse reply. Such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information and is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act which may lead to punitive action against them.
Citation:Vijay Kumar Verma v. Container Corporation of India Ltd, File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/105017; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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 about the date, month, year and time on which a particular order was passed, uploaded and further related information. Regarding the contention of the Appellant that information as furnished by the PIO is not a certified copy and same is without rounded seal & stamp in violation of the guidelines mentioned in OM No.10/1/2O13- IR dated 06.10.2015, the CIC observed that the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply which is duly signed by the PIO and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of FAA. The aforementioned essential details have been duly provided by the PIO in their reply and the OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015 does not require that the certified copy of the reply with a rounded seal should be provided to the RTI Applicant. In the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought certified copy of the document only at point No. 3 of the RTI Application in response to which it has been clearly mentioned by the PIO that no such document exists in their record. The CIC upheld the reply provided by the PIO.
Comments
If “certified” copies of certain documents are sought by the applicant, the PIO should be careful as such documents might be presented to a court of law as evidence.
Citation: Ms. Neha Chawla v. Supreme Court of India, CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/117161; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025
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 data on customer satisfaction ratings for SBI services from its inception and other information. The PIO replied that the information is not compiled centrally in the ordinary course of business and not readily available in the material form. The collection of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Before the CIC, the respondent clarified that data sought vide the RTI application is not available in the desired format. The CIC held that in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, there is scope of intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal. The CIC brought it to the notice of the respondent that in a series of matters filed by the appellant against a different public authority i.e IDPL, in file nos. CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/612395 and CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/604666, an order was passed to veracity of the appellant’s BPL status. The respondent was advised to exercise due caution with respect to the future RTI application received from the appellant relying on his Below Poverty Line (BPL) status.
Comments
Some unscrupulous elements indulge in misuse of the RTI Act by making a false claim of BPL to obtain information without paying any fee. The Public Authority should train its PIO's to detect such individuals and deal with them in accordance with law.
Citation: Rachhpal Singh Saini v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2024/602064; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
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 about implementation of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi asking for the pay fixed, Date of enhancement of the rate of pay and other related information about fellow officers. The PIO denied information under Sec 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act informing that the information sought is a classified information which also include personal information of third party and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity ог interest. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the Hon’ble CAT, vide order dated 31.05.2023 has passed an order in his favour in which the Respondent were directed to extend the similar benefits as granted to the Applicants in O.A. No. 1981/1996, in term of the directions contained in order dated 03.06.2002, if they are similarly situated and otherwise eligible and that is why he needs this information to compare his case with similarly placed employees. The Appellant highlighted that there is a big difference in the amount that has been paid to him as compared to others. The PIO informed that several correspondence were made to IHQ of MoD (Army) in the similarly placed case as well as in the instant case regarding non-feasibility towards convening review DPC for re-fixing the seniority in the lower grades at this belated stage without any requisite documentss. The CIC ruled that exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not available and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised reply along with requested information.
Comments
To differentiate between personal information and public activity, the CIC relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023.
Citation: Rama Nand Prabhakar v. AOC Records, PIN - 900453, C/o 56 APO; CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/605929; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
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 expressed grievance regarding non-payment of dearness allowance and family pension and requested for clarification from the PIO as to how payment for the months January to April 2023 was sanctioned. The CIC observed that the information sought is speculative in nature and the same does not qualify as “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Holding that the information is not available under the custody of the respondent PIO, the CIC found no scope for further intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 can be used to obtain uncover inaction or information but by itself, is not a channel for grievance redressal.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/111643; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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 documentary requirement for a bus driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and other information was sought. The PIO stated that on directions of the FAA, the reply along with copy of Recruitment Rules has been provided to the appellant. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO tendered his apology for delay in reply by explaining that delay occurred due to reorganization of units within DTC and resultant reshuffling of staff and records. He added that it was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. He further agreed to file a written submission explaining the reason for delay in giving reply with supporting documents on the CIC’s website and will mark a copy of the same to the appellant. The CIC accepted the apology and condoned the delay in the absence of malafide on the part of the PIO holding it as unintentional.
Comments
The simple deed of sending a timely reply could have saved the PIO from the embarrassment of tendering an apology and would have also avoided the appellant from going through the hassle of filing a complaint. The time frame for filing a reply to the RTI application should be strictly followed by all the PIO’s.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation, CIC/DTCOR/A/2024/601322; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
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 a contract to build a website and related information was not provided claiming that that no contract/MOU/Agreement/etc to build the website was found in the file. It was informed that the matter is very old and related files have been physically destroyed as per Regulations for the Army 1987. Further, all efforts have been undertaken at the Army Headquarters Southern Command to investigate the details as asked by the applicant. However, personnel involved in the said matter have been posted out as routine turnover/ retired. The CIC observed that the information sought was denied by the Respondent on the plea that it was more than 10 years old and the same was destroyed as per as per Regulations for the Army 1987. However, no documentary evidence of the destruction of record or the specific record retention schedule applied in this case has been provided. The CIC directed the Respondent to search the records once again and if the documents were not found, they should provide a copy of the Record Retention Policy and a copy of weeded-out record destruction certificate, to the Appellant. If the records destruction certificate is not available, then the Respondent should file an affidavit to the CIC regarding non-availability of the documents sought in the RTI application.
Comments
If the records are being destroyed as per the record maintainance schedule, the destruction memo must be maintained and the copy of the same provided to the RTI applicant.
Citation: Kamal Kashyap v. HQ Chief Engineer, HQ Southern Command, PIN-908541, C/o 56 APO, CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/614534; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
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 details of non-compliance towards certain appeals communicated to CIC. The CIC observed that the case is premised on cumbersome and incoherent contents placed on record by the Appellant and the grouse of the Appellant is his alleged pending appeal(s)/letter(s). The CIC noted that the averred replies were mere reference letters quoted by the Appellant in the preface to his RTI Application and yet the Appellant chose to argue at length against these replies in the First Appeal when these were not even the actual RTI queries. The CIC commented on the sheer enormity of the jumbled contents of the instant RTI Application and the fact that it is framed as though the Appellant is filing a grievance petition, and not being clear about what exactly the reference letter(s) are. The CIC pointed to the preface to the RTI Application which refered to different letter(s), thus causing much of unwarranted confusion and making the task of deciphering the desired information onerous. The CIC dismissed the appeal remarking that RTI Act did not envisage the exercise of right to information in such a frivolous manner.
Comments
Sometimes a PIO comes across an application containing ramblings making it nearly impossible to comprehend what is the information being sought. Such inarticulate disjoined applications makes it nearly difficult to provide any meaningful information.
Citation: B Parameshwar v. Central Information Commission, CIC/CICOM/A/2024/113340; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
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