RTI Corner

The appellant sought for the exact date and time when the file pertaining to the recommendation for issuance of the proclamation of Hon President under Article 356 of the Constitution of vis-à-vis the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir was received in the Secretariat; the exact date and time when the Secretariat put up the said file for the consideration of Hon. President and the exact date and time when Hon. President appended his signature to the Proclamation. Similar information was sought regarding the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 (C.O 272) and the file pertaining to the draft Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act claiming it to be fiduciary. The appellant argued that the date and time of receipt of various files by the President Secretariat is required to be routinely maintained in the dak and file movement register and in the e-office system on a computerised database in real time. After perusal of the records, the CIC observed that it is difficult to comprehend as to how information sought is held in a fiduciary capacity by the President’s Secretariat. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI Application and provide an appropriate response strictly in accordance with the provisions.
Comments
The CIC made a categorical observation that it is difficult to comprehend as to how information sought is held in a fiduciary capacity by the President’s Secretariat. With this view, the CIC ought to have taken a final decision on the matter whether to disclose the information rather than sending the matter back to the PIO.
Citation: Shri Venkatesh Nayak v. PIO, President Secretariat in Second Appeal No. CIC/PRSEC/A/2020/675160, Date of Decision: 09.08.2021
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 the copies of all performance reviews carried between Dec. 2012 -March 2014, copies of disagreements submitted and related information from the IAF which was denied u/s 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The applicant submitted that he is not asking for the Appraisal report but the copies of the Performance Review and that he is privy to but does not have any copy of the same. It was informed that the information asked by the applicant belongs to a period when the AR procedure was not completely online. The CIC observed that the information was denied under Sec. 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act in a blanket manner without proper scrutiny of each and every point. The CIC directed that the performance review from Dec. 2012 -March 2014 should be provided to the appellant under the RTI even if not generally given, as he is already privy to the same. The copy of his own disagreement note should also be given. Similarly, all other points onwards should be studied again vis-a –vis the discussions during the hearing and the appellant’s recent submissions and a proper point wise reply be given.
Comments
In the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that the Appraisal report of defense personnel are not liable to be disclosed under RTI Act.
Citation: Kunal Kumra v. Directorate of Personal Services, Air Head Quarters in File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/134503, Date of Decision: 08/07/202
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 a copy of his service book which was not provided to him by the then CPIO. He further contested that his service book was available in the Institute at time of filing of RTI Application, however, perhaps it appears to have been misplaced from the records or is available with the other Institute. The CPIO, enlightened the CIC with the fact that there 28 Institutes including that of Appellant’s Institute which are governed by Ranlaxmi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and get grants in aid. The PIO submitted that as on date the Appellant is himself working as an acting Principal as also he is the designated CPIO of the concerned Institute from where he has sought a copy of his service book. Upon a query from the CIC, the Appellant answered in affirmative that he is the designated CPIO in the said Institute. The CIC held that the Appellant being the current designated CPIO of the Institute can call for the service book/ record of his own from the Institute itself which is the custodian of his service record. The CIC directed the CPIO, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan to trace the records and procure a copy of the Appellant’s own Service book from the office records of the Institute. In the event of the service book not available with the said Institute, the CPIO, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan may find out and procure the same from the concerned Institute/ record holder where it is available.
Comments
Copy of the service book cannot be denied to the person to whom it pertains to under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Anil anand v. Shri Ranlaxmi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya in File No : CIC/RSSAN/A/2019/160412 & CIC/RSSAN/A/2019/659686, Date of Decision : 07/07/2021
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 regarding a copy of the affidavit submitted by appellant’s wife Mrs Bhavya Sharma to the sanctioning authority for grant of maintenance allowance was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant contended that the exemption claimed by the PIO is not proper as he was seeking information about his wife so as to know if the contents of the affidavit filed by her for grant of maintenance allowance are correct or not. The CIC held that even if there is a husband- wife relationship between the appellant and the third person regarding whom he is seeking the information but under the RTI Act, a husband is considered as a third party to his wife and the same applies vice-versa. Unless and until there is an involvement of larger public interest in disclosure of the information, no relief can be given in such cases.
Comments
Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act defines ‘third party’ as a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. The definition of a third party is vast and everyone other than the applicant is covered under it. A relationship does not entitle an individual to overlook the privacy of the third party.
Citation: Manish Kumar v. Headquarters Northern Command in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/138225, Date of Decision: 02/06/2021
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 applicant sought copies of all performance reviews carried out from December 2012 onwards till Mar 2014, including all performance reviews from any officer, which are taken into account for processing of the appraisal reports. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1) ( e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The applicant contended that the respondents are likely to deny this information under the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt vs Union of India, but the same is not applicable as the applicant is not asking for the Appraisal report but the copies of the Performance Review (that the applicant is privy to but does not have any copy of the same). The CIC directed that the performance review from Dec. 2012 -March 2014 should be provided to the applicant under the RTI even if not generally given, as he is already privy to the same. The copy of his own disagreement note should also be given.
Comments
The order of the CIC opens the gates for disclosure of the performance reviews in case of the defence forces.
Citation: Kunal Kumra v. Directorate of Personal Services, Air Head Quarters in File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/134503, Date of Decision: 08.07.2021
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

Different financial organisations approached the CIC separately seeking stay of the order of the PIO of RBI claiming that disclosure would cause irreparable loss and injury to their institution while no prejudice would be caused to the RTI applicant. In terms of the prayer, the CIC admitted the second appeal and keeping in view of the urgency, the operation of the PIO’s reply and FAA’s order was stayed till further orders. The CIC directed that the matter may be posted for hearing as soon as possible.
Comments
The Supreme Court has already deliberated upon the issue in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and has directed that such information is liable to be disclosed. Hence, the interim order of the CIC restraining the CPIO from releasing the information appears to be without merit. On 02.07.2021, the Supreme Court refused the prayers made by Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India to stay the RTI notices issued to them by the Reserve Bank of India.
Citation: Experian Credit Information Company Pvt. Limited & Anr. V. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/615945 with similar order in: Babaji Datey Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/109972; Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited & Anr. v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/611795; Jain Co-operative Bank Limited & Anr. v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India & Anr. in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/110465, Date of Decision: 01.06.2021
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 Complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI applications with a malafide intention. He alleged that the PIO intentionally did not provide documentary information relating to functioning of his Supervisor Officer/FAA to avoid embarrassment to him and obstructed information with malafide intention. The Complainant submitted that the FAA did not disposed of his first appeals within stipulated time and has given decisions where information sought is related to him which is in sheer violation of principal of natural justice. The CIC observed that the then PIO has been very casual in disposing of the RTI applications and previously, strict warning has been issued to him. The CIC further observed that the FAA was upholding the vague replies of the PIO by passing general orders and no directions or guidance was given by the FAA to the PIO to provide the information to the applicant. Rather the FAA has blindly approved the replies of the PIO. Further, there is a delay on the part of the FAA in disposing the first appeals of the complainant and he did not recuse or provide information in RTI matters relating to his conduct as FAA. The CIC held that the PIO is not required to give his own judgments on the issue and terming any information unnecessary is not warranted. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- u/S 20(1) of the RTI Act on the then PIO for his casual and callous approach in responding to the RTI applications.
Comments
A PIO must follow the timeline provided under the RTI Act and should not be judgmental about the queries raised by the Applicant.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint Nos. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647839, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647842, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647906 & CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647907, Date of Decision: 27-05-2021
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 on 15 points was sought from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment such as the number of persons having Autism Spectrum Disorder, Mental illness, Multiple Disabilities etc. Information about offence committed against persons with disability and data about the against persons with disability like their Marital Status, Employment Status, Education Status was also desired. Further, the appellant sought information about steps taken to encourage employment and equal participation of the differently abled in the field of work and to promote respect, empathy and tolerance towards the differently abled. The PIO submitted the available data of persons with disabilities (PwDs) category wise and State wise was provided. He added that the process of incorporating segregated data on autism and specific learning disabilities is ongoing as a part of the UDID initiative i.e ‘Unique Disability ID’ which is being implemented with a view of creating a National Database for PwDs, and to issue a Unique Disability Identity Card to each person with disabilities. The CIC held that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment ought to take certain extraordinary steps aimed at data creation entailing the aspects as pointed out by the Appellant in his RTI Application to the extent possible and to facilitate a centralised resource centre i.e the Ministry’s website for the general public. A copy of the order was marked to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to expeditiously look into the serious concerns raised by the Appellant and to take note of the advisory of the Commission.
Comments
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Act was enacted under Article 253 of Constitution of India to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The applicant has used the RTI Act successful for creating a huge database for the persons with disability.
Citation: L Muruganantham v. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in File No: CIC/DEPDD/A/2019/648066, Date of Decision: 31/05/2021
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 filed an application with the UGC and sought to know about the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in a particular session of the Jagan Nath University. The PIO, UGC transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to The Registrar Jagan Nath University, for providing information directly to the appellant. The CIC observed that the transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by PIO, UGC to Registrar Jagan Nath University mindlessly without ascertaining the status of the said University vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate. The CIC emphasized that the Appellant had sought for the information from a public authority and not from the Jagan Nath University which is very well as per the letters and spirit of the RTI Act. The PIO, UGC was directed by CIC to provide a statement indicating the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in the averred session of the University. The CIC directed the Chairman, UGC to ensure that only officers equivalent to the rank of the PIO are designated to represent the cases before the Commission in future.
Comments
In case the PIO is not able to attend the hearing before the CIC, an officer of the equivalent rank who is well versed with the issue, should be nominated to attend the hearing.
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 applicant sought a copy of a Board meeting and related information. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO submitted that a suitable reply was given on 06.05.2021. He further submitted that the applicant has filed writ petition no. CWP 1825 of 2020 and he has already filed the documents along-with the writ petition. The Cantonment Board also filed the reply with all documents before the Hon’ble High Court and also submitted all the documents which are related under the RTI Act. The CIC took serious note of the unnecessary delay in providing the reply. The CIC observed that the purpose of the Act gets defeated if a citizen has to wait for the second appeal hearing to get a reply from the PIO. Moreover, the reply dated 06.05.2021 was also not available on record. The PIO was issued a strict warning for not providing a reply on time. Further, he was cautioned to be careful in future and send written submissions to the Commission in advance of the hearing.
Comments
The PIO should provide a reply to the RTI applicant within the timeline prescribed under the RTI Act. In this case, the PIO if the Cantonment Board was cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated. A PIO must exercise due caution to prevent such caustic remarks being passed against him.
Citation: Sanjay v. Chief Executive Officer Office of the Cantonment Board 229 Race Course Road, Ambala Cantt in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/129849, Date of Decision: 12/05/2021
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 submitted that he had filed written submissions at CIC in respect of his second appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059 on 23/07/2018. In this connection, he sought a certified copy of the said written submissions. The appellant submitted that certified copy means, stamp has to be affixed and designated officer has to sign the document and give it. He admitted that the Commission cannot certify a document not generated by them but was concerned that his written submissions was not received at the time of decision. The PIO submitted that the written submissions dated 23.07.2018 of the appellant were available on record at pages 50-97 of the PDF file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059. The PIO replied that there is no provision for providing certified copy of the documents provided by the appellant to the appellant himself. The CIC upheld the order of the PIO.
Comments
The information generated by the applicant is not held by the PIO. Being the originator of the information, the applicant is the holder of the information. This view has been upheld by the Madras High Court in W.P no. 26781 of 2013.
Citation: Prakash Ishwarbhai Patel v. RTI Cell, Central Information Commission in File No.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2019/116199, Date of Decision: 23/04/2021
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 deployment of army men to other country (UN & Bhutan) for specific mission like the certified copy of the instructions on the basis of which unit sends its army men to other country, the number of times the army men employees have been deployed to other country since January 2005, the list of Army men who were sent to other country, the criteria fixed for selection of Army men etc. The reply was delayed and not proper. The CIC held that the RTI application was handled very badly and it shows that the RTI matters are being handled in a very negligent manner. The CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the respondent organisation as a whole for showing such laxity while handling the RTI applications and the correspondence related to it and to the then CPIO for being negligent in handling the RTI application. The CIC directed that the Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee office needs to evolve a system to ensure proper receipt & dispatch of the RTI correspondence by the CPIOs/Deemed PIOs/FAAs and maintain a proper record of every RTI application received and replied to by the organisation.
Comments
For timely discharge of duties mandated under the RTI Act, the dak management system of the public authority should be proper. All public authorities should maintain a proper record of each and every RTI application received in the organisation, to whom it is marked for action to prevent misplacement and mishandling of RTI correspondence. If an organisation needs to organise training programmes for the CPIOs and the deemed PIOs to familiarize them with the provisions of the RTI Act, they should contact proper trainers so that mistakes do not happen.
Citation: Gurmeet Singh v. Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/111340, Date of Decision: 04/03/2021, 26/03/2021, 23/04/2021
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