RTI Corner

The appellant sought information about the marks scored by him in the examination conducted for the Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF Examination. The information was denied and on query by the CIC, the respondent submitted that it was not declared by the Appellant in his RTI Application that his result was withheld, which is why such a reply was provided to him. The appellant argued that since information related to one of the candidates has been provided, he is also entitled to access the information related to him now since the OA stands disposed of. The appellant submitted that the averred OA infructuous and the interim order that the PIO is relying upon to withhold the information of the candidates in a sealed cover was no longer stipulated to be in operation whilst passing the final order. The averred final order stipulates that all pending MA(s) are also disposed of with another connected OA being described as infructuous and this order significantly predates the date of filing of the RTI Application. Additionally, the PIO has not complied with the averred FAA’s order which was leaning in favor of the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to submit a written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for failing to provide a proper reply to the RTI Application at the original instance as the queries of different nature i.e distinct from the mere marks and result of the Appellant were left unattended by providing an unwarranted cumulative reply. Further, the PIO was also directed to explain the prima-facie non-compliance of the FAA’s order within 15 days. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available information regarding the Appellant’s result and OMR sheet as sought for.
Comments
In many instances, it has been pointed out that the marks scored by an individual should be provided to him/her unless any of the exemption sections of the RTI Act, 2005 can be invoked to deny the information.
Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2024/633982; Date of Decision: 10.09.2025
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 SC and ST Professors currently employed at IIM Ranchi, the vacancy position, the special recruitment drives etc. which did not result into any response from the PIO. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was forwarded to Mr. Amit Kumar, (HR), subsequently, reminders were also sent but no response had been received from him. Upon receipt of hearing notice, the information was collected from the concerned office and uploaded on the Commission’s weblink. The CIC noted that the respondent has not responded to the RTI application in spite of over 1½ years having elapsed. The reply uploaded on Commission’s web portal has not provided to the appellant. The CIC noted that the PIO has not been made any efforts to furnish a response to the appellant even upon receipt of hearing notice and he failed to explain the cogent reasons for the same. The CIC issued a Show-cause notice to PIO, Mr. Rajasekhar David, Assistant Professor, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him for not responding to the RTI application within stipulated time.
Comments
It is disquieting that instances continue to arise where the CIC has no option but to issue show-cause notices to PIOs for neglecting to respond to RTI applications within the statutory timeframe, thereby inviting penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. If the case pertains to a premier management institute, one wonders whether it is a case of lack if awareness of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Citation: Raju Paswan v. Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMRC/A/2024/643443; Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
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

Details of actions taken by the RBI regarding Action Taken on a letter addressed to the Governor of RBI by the appellant in respect of an alleged unauthorized transaction conducted by Bank of Baroda in violation of the Banking Regulation Act. The PIO informed that the said letter as mentioned in the query was not received by the Governor's office. The appellant enclosed proof of delivery of letter in his second appeal. The CIC held that the PIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the PIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. The CIC referred to the Delhi High Court judgment dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi v. Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] in which it was held that whether or not such information as provided by the PIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings.
Comments
The Information Commission is the last bastion of fact verification and it is only the law points which are discussed at the level of High Court or Supreme Court. The Information Commission must seize the opportunity to verify the correctness of data provided by the PIO, and penalize the PIO if the information provided is factually incorrect.
Citation: Surjitsinh Mangrola v. Reserve Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/655388; Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
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 enrolment of Mr. Ram Pat Garg who claims to be an Advocate of the Bar Council of Delhi. He sought the copies of all documents submitted by Mr. Ram Pat Garg to get himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council, including his Declarations, Enrolment Form, Affidavits. Education Credentials, etc. The PIO informed that as per records, Mr. Ram Pat Garg was provisionally enrolled as an Advocate vide Enrolment No. D/11197/2022. Further, other information cannot be provided as the same is duly exempted under the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it is a third-party information and no larger public interest has been disclosed. The Appellant contended that there is larger public interest in the information sought as the said person Ram Pat Garg is in judicial custody and that creates a reasonable suspicion on him in justifying disclosure of the sought documents. The respondent contended that the appellant can raise a formal complaint against the said third-party in contention if he doubts the enrollment of the third-party. The CIC ruled that there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party in any of the above-referred contexts.
Comments
Mere making an allegation is not enough, the applicant must establish the larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third party.
Citation: Rishabh Sharma v. Bar Council of Delhi, Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2025/107213; Date of Decision: 12.12.2025
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

Appellant sought for the attested photocopy of the completed standard assessment (form A & B) for recognition of MBBS seats for the AY 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24, submitted by the Principal of the Kanti Devi Medical College Hospital and Research Center Mathura, UP. The appellant stated that the inspectors or assessors of the National Medical Commission physically visit the college campus to prepare the report, after checking whether the medical college has sufficient number of beds, faculty, nurses and infrastructure of hostels, library, lecture halls, playground and hospital. So, the report has all the relevant information crucial for the prospective MBBS students to decide their admission in a particular college. The assessors give their observations to the replies submitted by college authorities and upon preparation of the report, the assessors send one copy to the NMC and one to the College. Based on the observations and recommendations, the NMC decides whether or not to sanction the running of a medical college and grant permission for admissions for the academic year in which assessment is conducted. Hence, the assessment reports are crucial source of information, particularly for aspiring medical students who can verify the infrastructure and faculty of the medical colleges, whether a particular college is fulfilling the prescribed medical education norms or not to and make admission decisions. The Respondent stated that since Under Graduate Medical Board (UGMEB) is not the custodian of the information, the same was sought from concerned Board i.e. Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) and it was intimated that during the said period MARB will not be able to furnish the Assessment Report under NMC Act, 2019. The CIC held that the information sought by the Appellant ought to be disclosed and placed in public domain. In the past that, the CIC has directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to upload infrastructure, faculty and other related information in the form of the assessment reports of the medical colleges on its official website, nmc.org.in, considering the crucial nature of the information.
Comments
Availability of information about the infrastructure and faculty of the colleges helps an aspiring student to compare them to make admission decisions. Information regarding whether a particular college is fulfilling the prescribed education norms or not must be made public as it is essential for every student.
Citation: Shri. R B Gautam v. National Medical Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/NMCOM/A/2023/669929; Date of Decision: 09.04.2024, 28.08.2025
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 sought information related to the Bharathidasan Institute of Management (BIM) located in the campus of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Trichy such as whether BHEL was a collaborating partner, whether CMD attended the meeting, whether charge-sheet was issued to some officers for granting approval to BIM, etc. The PIO replied that information sought related to BIM which is a private institute and BHEL has no stake in the aforesaid institute. No MoU between BHEL and BIM is available on record. BHEL had allotted the building premises to BIM on lease basis for certain period and thereafter on license agreement basis. In accordance with the BHEL Shop and Allotment Policy, the license fee is collected as per the market rent from BIM and not on any discount or concessional rate. At present, a sum of Rs. 1.40 Crores per annum (excluding GST) is being collected as license fee from BIM. But the Respondent failed to establish how the market rent was arrived at in the absence of any open transparent competitive process. As regards details of tender floated by the BHEL for allotment of its building premises to BIM, the PIO submitted that no document related to the tender is available in their records. The appellant alleged before CIC that BHEL is one of the founders of BIM, and the registration fee for the society’s registration was paid by BHEL. The CIC noted that the Respondent has neither stated in their written submissions nor clarified during the hearing whether grant of its building premises to BIM for establishing the institute was done through open transparent and competitive process through tender/auction conducted by BHEL. No details of any tender process have been provided by the PIO. The CIC observed that it is a matter of common understanding when government land or property is to be leased out particularly to a private institution, such allotment is ordinarily undertaken through an open, transparent and competitive (tender/ auction) process. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that BHEL followed such a procedure before granting its building to BIM on lease. The CIC pointed out that if land or a building is provided by a public authority to a private entity free of cost or at a heavily subsidized rate, such support may itself amount to “substantial financing”. In the absence of any tender or auction records, the method of determination of ‘market rent’ remains unclear. The CIC held that the Appellant too has not been able to substantiate his assertions or demonstrate how the body from which information is sought is owned, controlled, or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, either by BHEL or by the appropriate Government. The CIC noted that on the website of BIM it is mentioned that the institute was established in collaboration with BHEL. Holding that both sides are unable to come clear on the requirement of the RTI Act and/or public funding, the CIC directed the PIO to submit an appropriate affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper to establish the whether BIM is a public authority.
Comments
The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information which he failed to discharge in this case. For seeking information related to BIM, it has to be established that it is owned, controlled or substantially financed by BHEL.
Citation: Senthil Manian Vellaichamy v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2024/627929 + /657539; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
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

No reply about Charitable Trust by the public authority
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 28.12.2023 seeking the information about Chiranjeev Charitable Trust which ran three schools. He asked how he was terminated without any show cause notice after 17 years of service. He sought for the permission letter for name change of the society from the Registrar office and other related information. The CIC observed that as per available record file, no reply was given to the Appellant at the initial stage by the answering Respondent and admonished him for the same. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice from the CIC, a suitable and pointwise reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.10.2025, but, a copy of the same was not received by the Appellant. Accordingly, the CIC directed the Respondent to send a copy to the appellant along with relevant annexures, through speed-post as well as through email. Further, the CIC cautioned the Respondent Public Authority to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
Comments
The simple act of replying to the RTI applicant can prevent the avoidable embarrassment of appearing before the CIC and wastage of time.
Citation: Vikram Singh v. Sub Registrar-VII (INA), Vikas Sadan, New Delh, File No: CIC/REVDP/A/2024/615016; Date of Decision : 14.10.2025
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 gave his enrollment number and submitted that he had completed his Diploma in Civil Engineering from a particular University in 2014. He wanted to verify whether these details match with the official data records. The PIO informed that the UGC does not verify the Validation of documents and requested the appellant to approach the concerned University. The CIC observed that the Appellant did not seek for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather he sought for clarification or confirmation of a speculative statement. While the PIO attempted to facilitate the Appellant by giving a clarification as though replying to a grievance petition, but the PIO ought to have specified that the Appellant has not asked for any information per se.
Comments
In purely legal terms, the role of the PIO is restricted to providing what is covered under the definition of the term “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It would be prudent for the PIO to examine whether the request of the applicant is within the parameters of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and take action accordingly.
Citation: Praveen Kumar v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/658054; Date of Decision: 13.10.2025
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

A husband sought for the current balance of PPF account and last amount deposit of his wife enclosing the copy of marriage certificate as the evidence of marriage. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Before the CIC, the PIO explained that as per the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, the consent from the concerned third-party and wife of the appellant was sought. However, she had declined consent for disclosure of information relating to her PPF account. The CIC noted that there is no public interest and rejected the appeal.
Comments
Many couples feel that they have a right to seek information about their spouse from a government agency. Legally, husband and wife are distinct individuals and the information relating to each of them has to be considered personal to each one of them.
Citation: Vipin Mittal v. Department of Post, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/645016; Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
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 an application seeking information whether it is mandatory to have SEBI Registered License with person or company who teaching about stock market and whether SEBI takes Complaint against stock market educator person or company who is Non Registered with SEBI. The PIO replied that it cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act as it is in the nature of seeking clarification. The CIC observed that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted and upheld that reply provided by the PIO.
Comments
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the public authority under any other law for the time being in force. A public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Further, many public authorities provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens as a public relation exercise. But the same is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
Citation: Akshay Vasani v. Securities And Exchange Board of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/644498; Date of Decision: 31.10.2025
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 a certified copy of the initial map related to a particular building which was donated to Jhansi Cantonment Board for construction purposes. The appellant also sought a certified copy of the General Land Register, total property tax assessed and other related information. As no response was received within the prescribed time period, the appellant filed the first appeal and later the second appeal before the CIC. According to the arguments presented by the respondent, the current PIO, who was responsible for disposing of the submitted RTI application has retired, and no show cause notice proceedings can be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act against a retired PIO. The CIC directed the current PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to ensure timely and proper disposal of pending RTI applications in accordance with the law, failing which appropriate action shall be taken against them in the future under the provisions of the Act. Further, the CIC directed the PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to examine the information sought by the appellant through the submitted RTI application and, based on the available records, provide the requested information/response to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Comments
A coordinate bench of the CIC in Appeal Nos. CIC/PB/2008/00999 and CIC/SM/A/2009/000286 dated 13-05-2010 held that since the concerned PIO has retired from the service, we find it not possible to impose any penalty on him at this point of time. The precedent was followed in many subsequent orders like Shri Chander Prakash v. AAI, CIC/SS/C/2013/000053 dated 18.12.2013. The RTI Act does not specifically debar action against the PIO on superannuation.
Citation: Sudhir Choudhary v.Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi Cantonment Board, File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/114007; Date of order: 03.11.2025
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 complainant had sought information regarding the exact number of Nikkah (Marriage) conducted by the Janab. M. Mohamed Ali Maraicar, Khazi, Karaikal District since his appointment in the post till 30.9.2023. The application was forwarded under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 since certain information sought in the application pertain to the other office with a request to provide the required information directly to the applicant. The CIC noted that the PIO took appropriate steps under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to forward the request to the authority holding the information (District Government Khazi), and the Complainant was informed about the same. Subsequently, a composite reply was provided on 19.12.2023. The CIC held that there is no evidence of wilful denial or refusal by the Respondent authority and disposed of the complaint.
Comments
The RTI Act mandates that where a public authority does not hold the information but has made bona fide efforts to forward the request to the relevant authority, the PIO is not held liable under the Act as no mala fide iss established on part of the Respondent.
Citation: J Mohammed Bilal v. Puducherry State Waqf Board, CIC/UTPON/C/2024/102435; Date of Decision 01.05.2025
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