RTI Corner

The Appellant sought copy of Roster of posting/transfer of civilian employees Mech. Infantry Regiment (MIR), which was denied under section 8(1)(j). In the submission to the CIC, Lt. Col. JS Brar, PIO went into the history of the service conduct of the Appellant to persecute his alleged habit of filing RTI Applications. The PIO stated that since the mother of the Appellant has expired, the reason for which he applied for compassionate posting has become null and void. The CIC observed that this by implication suggests that the PIO perhaps intends to apprise the bench that the information sought in the RTI Application is of no use to the Appellant now. The CIC severely warned the PIO to exercise due caution in future in matters of RTI Act. Further, the CIC ruled that as the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was completely inappropriate, the PIO was directed to provide specific and available information as sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost.
Comments
Under the RTI Act, an applicant is not required to provide any reasons for seeking information, nor is the applicant expected to have a pristine service record to be eligible to access information. The Act bestows a statutory right which can be exercised by any citizen irrespective of his reasons or the fact that he is a government servant or not. The PIO is only required to justify the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, without making any submissions relevant to RTI Act.
Citation: R V Wagh v. CPIO, The Mech Infantry Regiment in File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2018/101803/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 Complainant sought a copy of order issued for recovery of amount of HRA and LTC alleged to have been drawn illegally by certain individuals in Directorate of Sugar and Vegetable oil. The PIO submitted that appropriate reply was sent to the Complainant which was returned undelivered citing reason of non-availability of any such person. The CIC upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the Complainant could perhaps be a fictitious person as both - the CPIO reply as well as Commission’s notice of hearing - has come back undelivered with similar remarks. The CIC dismissed the complaint.
Comments
A PIO must send the reply by speed post or registered post and retain the evidence of the reply sent to the RTI applicant which would be handy if a charge of not providing the information is made.
Citation: Lakhinder Singh v. CPIO, Directorate of Sugar and Vegetable Oil, Department of Food and Public Distribution in File No: CIC/DOFPD/C/2017/194444/SD, Date of Decision: 07/01/2019
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 PIO submitted that the copy of ACR/APAR of the Appellant and DPC note sheet was denied because he is a Defence Civilian employee. The Central Information Commission observed that the PIO has grossly erred in denying Appellant’s own ACR/APAR to him and the reasoning provided for the denial lacks rationality. The PIO was directed to provide copy of ACR/APAR of the Appellant, the copy of the relevant DPC note sheet and promotion order after appropriately blacking out portions pertaining to third party.
Comments
As per the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors, the disclosure of ACR remarks of a “public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military)” is the rule.
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 to inspect claim applications for 13th Press council made by certain Journalists Union and copies thereof. The CIC directed the PIO to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the ‘in-camera’ hearing to explain the denial of information under Section 8(1)(d), (j) and (e) of RTI Act. The CIC perused the records in detail and observed that apart from general information regarding the constitution, registration of the unions there are innumerable personal details of their members as well as financial details of the respective unions therein which cannot be even severed for provision. Observing that the no larger public interest has been claimed by the applicant, the CIC upheld the denial of information.
Comments
Just like any other Court, the CIC too holds ‘in camera’ proceedings. In case the information cannot be severed, the information can be denied to the RTI Applicant.
Citation: Vipin Dhuliya v. CPIO, Press Council of India in File No: CIC/PCIND/A/2017/170297/SD, Date of Final Decision: 30.11.2018
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

Details of criminal case registered against officers by CBI was denied u/s 24. The CIC took grave exception to the attempt of the representative of the CPIO to misrepresent facts during hearing to merely stand by the denial of information. The CPIO 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 observed that “it is unnerving to note that the CPIO does not mention his/her name in the replies provided under RTI Act which further reflects on the prima-facie evasive and callous approach of the CPIO in owning up to his/her acts of omission and commission”.
Comment
The reply to every RTI application should bear the name of the CPIO and each application should dealt with individually. A common cyclostyled reply for all cases should could land up the CPIO in trouble.
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 approval of the buildings of Lawrence School Lovedale by the DTCP, number of canteens/ hostels, if any, in the aforementioned school, documentary evidence regarding their licensing by the competent authority was sought. As the information was not provided, the matter came up before the CIC. The representative of MHRD present at the hearing submitted that the School Authorities were not furnishing information despite the fact that they were a Public Authority and as per the letter issued by them No. F. No. 4-24/2007-Sch. 3 dated 01.09.2008, it was declared that the school fell under the ambit of Public Authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC directed the Lawrence School Lovedale to disclose the information sought by the Appellant.
Comments
If an organisation is financed by government and it cannot function in the absence of such substantial financing, it would come within the ambit of a public authority.
Citation: Mr. Rajasekaran M v. CPIO and Headmistress, The Lawrence School Lovedale, The Nilgiris, Ooatacamund Tamil Nadu in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSELI/A/2018/185255-BJ, Date of Decision : 01.01.2019
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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Appellant submitted before the CIC that he has not received any reply from the CPIO or the FAA till date regarding his query about the ownership of a particular land. In response to a show cause notice for imposition of penalty, the PIO regretted that the RTI Application dated 31.03.2017 was not replied to. He further submitted that later, Appellant filed a RTI another RTI Application dated 02.02.2018 wherein he sought information which is covered in the information sought in RTI Application dated 31.03.2017 also. A reply dated 28.02.2018 was sent to the Appellant asking him to inspect documents and take copies as required. The PIO prayed that the show-cause proceedings may be dropped as there was no malafide intention in the failure to provide a reply on the RTI Application dated 31.03.2017 within the stipulated time frame. The CIC observed that the facts of the case reflect very poorly on the lack of rationality of the PIO even as malafide intention is not evinced. The CIC dropped the show-cause proceedings with a severe warning to the PIO to remain careful in future.
Comments
All the PIO’s should remember that each RTI Application has to be dealt as per the provisions of RTI Act. Merely on a belief that two very distinct RTI Applications seek similar information,a PIO cannot absolve himself from the statutory duty of replying to one of the RTI Applications within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Reply to one RTI Application cannot take care of the other even if the information is similar.
Citation: Kartik B Joshi v. CPIO O/o Cantonment Board, Devlali Cantt in Adjunct Decision File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155555/SD/Adjunct, Date : 26/12/2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of 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 http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/
Citation: Mr. Shiv Kirti Singh v. CPIO M/o. Finance in Complaint No. CIC/BS/C/2015/000189-BJ, Dept. of Revenue CBDT, Date of Decision: 17.04.2017, 29.11.2018