RTI Corner

The appellant sought a certified copy of all documents submitted by him at the time of his appointment in the Hindi Teaching Scheme (HTS), Chennai Office. The CIC held that the appellant is not entitled to the information as a matter of right under the RTI Act and the information sought cannot be provided to him.
Comments
In the case of High Court, Madras v. CIC, WP No. 26781/2013, the Madras High Court held that the copies of complaints and appeals submitted by an appellant are not the information available within the knowledge of the public authority. Admittedly, they are the documents of the appellant and therefore, if the appellant does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Citation: K N Rajasekar v. CPIO, Department of Official Language in Second Appeal No. CIC/DPOOL/A/2018/114542 dated 28.08.2019
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 was compulsorily retired by the Bank of India and thereafter aggrieved by the action taken, he obtained a favourable order from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The order passed by the CGIT was challenged by the Bank of India and while admitting the case, the High Court directed the bank to deposit the amount of arrears ordered by CGIT payable to the appellant with the Registrar through a nationalized bank and secure it for a period of five years. He sought information regarding employees who joined after 01.09.1977, their dates of promotions, their cadre and also their dates of Superannuation. The information was denied as being exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act. He claimed the information was needed to ascertain as to whether the junior employee(s) had been promoted and whether he was entitled for higher back wages. The CIC held that the information may be made available to him so that the administration of justice can be delivered by ascertaining as to whether some junior had been promoted in terms of Central Government Industrial Tribunal order and whether he was entitled for higher wages.
Comments
As per section 4 (1)(b) (ix), a public authority is required to suo-moto publish a directory of its officers and employees. Further, section 4 (1)(b) (x) requires the public authority to proactively disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.
Citation: Ashok Kumar M Pandya v. CPIO, Bank of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2018/609629, Date: 16.08.2019
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 instructions issued to reply against RTI applications in Hindi or English or both from the PIO of the Department of Official Language, New Delhi. A second appeal was filed before the CIC on the ground that the response was not provided in English language. The PIO submitted that the then PIO had inadvertently replied to the appellant that information was sent in Hindi language as per extant guidelines. It was clarified that the lapse occurred because the reply sent by the erstwhile PIO was based on Rule 3 (1) of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (As amended in 1987) rather than Rule 3 (2) (b) which is the relevant rule which states that Communication from a Central Government Office to any person in a State or Union Territory of Region B may be either in Hindi or in English. The PIO also submitted that the State of Maharashtra was included in the Region B as per Rule 2 (g) of the aforementioned Rules. During the hearing before CIC, the PIO prayed to condone their lapse on the ground that being the representatives of the Department of Official Language, they were encouraged and expected to promote use of Hindi language in official correspondences. The PIO also conveyed that the bilingual (Hindi-English) version of the document is also now sent by the department to the appellant. The CIC observed that the response provided by the PIO was not appropriate. However, in the absence of any malafide intention, the CIC ruled that it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the PIO. The CIC counseled the present and erstwhile PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
Comments
The RTI Act provided for disclosing the information in the form in which it is existing and available. A PIO is not required to create the information or translate it for the information seeker.
Citation: Prafulla D Khedekar v. CPIO, Department of Official Language in Second Appeal No. CIC/DPOOL/A/2018/113700, Date of decision 30.07.2019
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 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/