RTI Corner

A copy of the report of the expert committee constituted under Dr. Anupam Verma to carry out technical review of 66 pesticides was not provided to the appellant although the reply appeared to be directing him to the website where the report was to be available. During the hearing the PIO, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage submitted that the report was not under their custody as it is available with the Ministry and also submitted that some matter in relation to the report is sub-judice before a court of law. The CIC observed that even if this submission is accepted, the PIO could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information which was not done. The appellant objected that if the report is sub-judice, this means some third person has the report and it has gone public and hence it cannot be denied to him. The CIC accepted the submission of the appellant and directed the PIO, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare to provide the information in the form of a copy of the report as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A case being sub-judice, by itself, cannot be a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Citation: Siddharth Joshi v. Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee in Decision no.: -CIC/DPPQS/A/2018/626961/02518, Date of Decision : 02/01/2020
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The PIO informed that the copy of Charge Memo and other documents connected with the relevant departmental proceedings were provided to the Appellant during the hearing of departmental proceedings, hence not provided in response to the instant RTI Application. The CIC observed that the PIO has erred in denying the information sought citing the matter as sub-judice. The CIC expressed displeasure over the conduct of PIO in citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for denying the information sought. The PIO was directed to provide copy of Charge Memo and other documents connected with the relevant departmental proceedings sought in the RTI Application.
Comments
There is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 which allows denial of information on the grounds of the matter being sub-judice. Further, if copies of certain documents are being sought under the RTI Act, they cannot be denied claiming that copies were already provided under some other proceedings.
Citation: Musabbar v. CPIO, Remount Training School Depot, CPIO, Remount Training School Depot in File No.: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/143104, Date of Decision: 02/01/2020
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com.

The appellant sent a letter to the CBSE seeking correction of name in CBSE certificate and subsequently sought an action taken report under RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the correction of his name in the CBSE certificate was done by the respondent authority though delayed by over a year and a half. The PIO submitted that the grievance of the appellant was redressed properly. The CIC observed that since the grievance of the appellant was redressed and the appellant is satisfied with the same, there is no scope for intervention in the matter. However, the PIO should note that the reply/information must be supplied within the time limit as laid down in the RTI Act. Interim replies have to be followed up with final relies as soon as possible, without the appellant needing to send any reminder in this regard.
Comments
There has been an increase in the use of RTI Applications seeking an action taken report on a complaint or a request for a particular action. In a large number of applications, filing of RTI Application has led to a positive outcome for the applicant.
Citation: Shyad Hafijur Rahman v. CPIO, Central Board of Secondary Education in Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/141146/02268, Date of Decision: 05/12/2019
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: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information related to his grievance which was sent to Ministry of Culture on Pg Portal. The PIO did not provide the desired information. During the hearing and in their written submissions also, both the PIO and the deemed PIO admitted that since the subject matter in the present RTI application and another RTI application filed in the past (which was replied to) were similar, they had taken the stand that a reply in connection with the present RTI application was not required. They also submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing repeated RTI application on the same subject matter. The CIC was appalled at the conduct of the CPIO and the deemed PIO for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner. The PIO and the deemed PIO kept the RTI application with them without taking any action though both had an administrative responsibility under the RTI Act to provide the correct and complete information in a timely manner. The CIC observed that the position not only paints a dismal picture of the public authority in regard to the management of RTI applications but also exhibits lack of complete awareness regarding the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC imposed a token penalty of Rs 1000/- each u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act on the CPIO, Smt. Vinodi Sharma and Smt. Kusum Dhingra, the deemed PIO.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, a categorical reply to each and every RTI application should be provide and this means even if a similar RTI application was replied to before and information was provided, this fact is to be brought to the knowledge of the appellant while replying to the subsequent RTI application.
Citation: Chandranshu Mehta v. Sangeet Natak Akademi (Ministry of Culture) in Decision no.: CIC/SANAK/A/2018/164502/01975/Final, Date of Decision: 28/10/2019, 03/12/2019.
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: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought copy of order of the Central Information Commission vide File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00566 dated 19.04.2007 alongwith certified copy of the documents etc. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO that the relevant file records have been weeded out because under the Evidence Act, the Public Authority does not have the power to weed out such records. The CPIO submitted that records pertaining to the relevant Second Appeal have been weeded out and the Appellant informed accordingly. The CIC held that it is not in a position to order any relief in the matter because the records sought are not available.
Comments
It is surprising to note that the CIC has not looked the question whether it had the power to destroy the records and if not so, who was responsible for directing the destruction of the file.
Citation: Vijay Pal Singh v. CPIO, Central Information Commission in File No: CIC/CICOM/A/2018/135290, Date of Decision: 05/12/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India.

Vide order dated 20.09.2017, the CIC had directed the CPIO, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata to provide certain information to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, no information was provided and the respondent admitted that, inadvertently, no reply in compliance with the order of the CIC could be furnished to the appellant. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the CIC to condone the same. The CIC took an adverse view of the inaction on the part of the respondent in not responding to its letter dated 08.02.2019 regarding non-compliance of the Commission’s order. This shows that the respondent had deliberately not complied with the Commission’s order. The CIC directed the Director General, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata to take corrective action in the matter. The CIC also recommended disciplinary action against Shri S.C. Bose, the then Assistant Director (Personnel and Administration) and CPIO, RTI Cell, GSI, Kolkata under the service rules applicable to him for not complying with the order of the Commission dated 20.09.2017.
Comments
Under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, disciplinary action can be taken against a CPIO for malafide denial of information.
Citation: B. K. Bisaria v. CPIO, Geological Survey of India in Appeal No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001876
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

Part information was provided in response to the applicant seeking information regarding seniority list of staff nurse. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant, if available. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the CIC for complete non application of mind, non-furnishing of information in response to the RTI application, non-compliance of the FAA’s order and violation of the mandate laid down by the RTI Act. The PIO submitted before the CIC that as PIO, Health Department as Nodal Officer, his responsibility always involved forwarding the questions/information sought by the applicant to the concerned branches under Health Department and forwarding the response received from them to the applicant i.e. the role of a Nodal PIO is that of a post office. The CIC observed that such a poor understanding of the RTI Act can be rectified not by imposing penalty, but by referring the Nodal PIO for a training session to upgrade his knowledge about RTI Act. The CIC marked a copy of the order to the FAA, H&FW Department to take necessary steps ensuring that the Nodal PIO is appropriately trained to handle RTI cases and made aware that the role of Nodal PIO encompasses more duties than acting merely as a post office
Comments
A PIO is not just a post office and should act as a catalyst in expediting dissemination of information by the actual custodian of information.
Citation: Smt. Nirmala Kumari v. 1. PIO, Deptt. Of Health & Family Welfare and PIO, O/o Medical Supdt., Lok Nayak Hospital in Second Appeal No. CIC/LOKHN/A/2017/151062, Date of Decision: 30.10.2019

The PIO, ISRO, Department of Space, was requested to provide information on five points pertaining to M/s KHFM Hospitality Management Services, (a Contractor), including information about the labour license and the category of workers. A copy of the wages paid by the Contractor, duly endorsed by the ISRO (Principal employer) was provided to the appellant. The PIO further stated that the record sought by the appellant may be available with the Contractor but documents cannot be obtained from a private person and provided to the appellant under the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the PIO was not aware that information can be obtained from a private person under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the PIO.
Comments
As per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, if a law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Citation: K Sambasivaiah v. CPIO, ISRO, Department of Space in Second Appeal No. CIC/DSPCE/A/2018/125894, Date 01.11.2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The Appellant sought the copies of all the official circulars, orders etc for ensuring “Adequate Safe Drinking Water to Public of Rajasthan in least minimum time” sent from time to time by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation to State of Rajasthan from 2002 till 29 March 2017. The PIO submitted that the desired information from the year 2011 onwards is available on the website of the concerned Ministry. However, before that the subject matter was handled by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation and hence, all the physical records available with them which were transferred from MDWS, are not in a consolidated and a ready-made form. The CIC directed to provide an additional reply to the appellant giving him proper hyper-links and sub-links where the desired information from the year 2011 can be located. Further, the inspection of the records related to the period before 2011 was ordered.
Comments
Information of such nature should be suo-moto disclosed by the Public Authority on their website for the ease and convenience of the public at large as a part of their obligation under section 4 (2) of the RTI Act. The PIO should provide the proper hyper-links and sub-links where the information sought by an applicant is available instead of plainly referring to on the website.
Citation: Sunil Pareek v. Ministry of Jal Shakti Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation in Decision no.: CIC/MODWS/A/2017/606108/MODWS/02019, Date of Decision: 31/10/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant sought information regarding enrolment of an Advocate in the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. The information was denied on the plea of being exempted under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The CIC observed that the public has a right to know as to whether a person who claims to be an advocate is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council or not. Hence, larger public interest mandates the disclosure of the information sought for.
Comments
The “public interest” override clause of the RTI Act allows for disclosure of information which is otherwise exempt from disclosure.
Citation: Mahender Pal v. CPIO, Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOI/A/2018/104444, Date 23.10.2017
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The appellant had filed a complaint vide letter dated 09.06.2017 addressed to Hon’ble HRD Minister and sought an action taken report in regard to above said letter under RTI Act. The PIO, MHRD submitted that the said complaint dated 09.06.2017 was forwarded to UGC vide letter no. F.No.5-4/2017-U.II dated 30.06.2017 and the appellant was informed accordingly on 10.01.2018. The PIO, UGC submitted that an appropriate reply was given vide letter dated 09.02.2018 stating that the said complaint dated 09.06.2017 was not received by them. The appellant submitted that he did not receive any relevant information from the PIO. The CIC observed that both the PIOs, UGC and MHRD, have handled the RTI application very poorly. Both the PIOs are required to provide information as per the availability of record. Hence, the CPIO MHRD should provide complete notings in respect of the processing of the complaint dated 09.06.2017. Moreover, the CPIO UGC should also re- examine the records and provide the present status of the complaint dated 09.06.2017. In case no action was taken a categorical reply should be provided.
Comments
If an appellant seeks the action taken report under the RTI Act in respect of the complaint filed by him, the same should be provided in the form of file notings or correspondence made. The inspection of the respective file should be provided rather than sleeping over the letter.
Citation: Sanjay Sharma v. CPIO, Ministry of Human Resource Development and CPIO, University Grants Commission (UGC) in Decision no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/119376/01617, Date of Decision: 13/09/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

Information regarding recruitment of faculty of NIT Kurukshetra including list of shortlisted candidates, list of selected candidates for the post of lecturer and other related information was sought. The appellant submitted that he received a reply which was delayed by one year and requested for imposition for penalty on the PIO. The CIC observed that despite a penalty of Rs 2000/- being imposed on the same PIO in another case, he has not concerned to reply to the present RTI application. The Commission took a serious note of the one year delay in providing a reply, the lackadaisical approach of the PIO and the inaction of the First Appellate Authority in providing a reply and observed that it shows the poor functioning of the respondent organisation. The CIC observed that the PIO is incorrigible as despite penalty being imposed earlier, he has still adopted a casual approach in dealing with this RTI application. A strict warning was issued to improve the manner of handling RTI applications and follow the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. Furthermore, the FAA was issued a strict warning for not disposing off the first appeal. The Chairperson, Board of Governor, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra was directed to take steps to ensure that the PIO and the FAA are dedicated towards promoting transparency and providing timely replies.
Comments
The PIO and FAA ensure timely disposal of RTI applications / appeals filed before them. Penalty may be imposed on a PIO in case of failure in performing the duty and even disciplinary action can be taken against the PIO.
Citation: Sudakar Singh Chauhan v. CPIO, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra in Decision no.: CIC/NITKS/A/2018/151482/01601, Date of Decision: 12/09/2019
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: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India