RTI Corner

An employee filed an application with his own public authority seeking information certain information about the decision of an independent committee. The desired information was not provided to her by the PIO while stating that she can get the information through proper channel. The PIO submitted that the appellant being an employee of the same organisation, the RTI application was put up before the higher authorities and based on the decisions taken by the higher authorities, a reply was provided to her. The CIC held that the PIO was supposed to address the points raised by the Appellant in her RTI application rather than stating that the applicant being herself an employee of the respondent is a part of information provider and can get the information through proper channel. The CIC cautioned the PIO to strictly follow the RTI regime while handling the RTI applications in future.
Comments
As per Section 3 of the RTI Act, a citizen has every right to file a RTI application and the PIO is legally bound to reply to the same. Even though one may be an employee of the organisation, it does not take away the right to file an application under the RTI Act to that organisation as a citizen.
Citation: Ani Dath v. ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute in Decision no.: CIC/CARIT/A/2018/166218/02856, Date of Decision: 12/02/2020
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. 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

Appellant sought information pertaining to his pay alleging certain discrepancies with respect to the same. He sought certified copy of recovery order issued by the Principal/DHE regarding fixation of pay in ACP, copy of pay fixation ACP case, copy of Earned leave record up to 30.07.2017 etc. The CIC directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant documents along with all the note sheets/correspondences pertaining to averred Pay Recovery order on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. The CIC further directed to provide copies of documents, if desired, to the Appellant without charging prescribed fees.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, the information can be denied only under section 8 and 9. All the available information must be provided failing which penal action may be taken against the PIO.
Citation: Ajit Singh v. Post Graduate Govt. College in File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2018/152703, Date of Decision : 19/03/2020
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. 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 the examination conducted for the post of Maintainer Electrician by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation like the category wise cut off marks of the candidates selected in the main merit list, the number of candidates finally selected and issues related thereto. He alleged large scale corruption in the selection process by the Respondent Public Authority. On being queried by the Commission whether the lists of selected candidates were available on the official website, the Respondent replied in the affirmative. The Appellant vehemently contested the averments of the Respondent and submitted that names of the selected candidates along with the marks secured was not available in the public domain and that the Respondent was duty bound to upload the same as per the decisions of the Superior Court. The CIC directed to furnish a copy of list of the selected candidates along with the marks secured as also the formula adopted in Normalisation Process by DMRC, to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country.
Comments
Though many State Information Commissions are non-functional, the CIC has been working while being mindful of the difficulties being faced due to the Coronavirus infection.
Citation: Mr. Sohan Singh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/DMRCP/A/2018/627844–BJ+ CIC/DMRCP/A/2018/628759-BJ, Date of Decision : 28.04.2020
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. 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 stated that the information about the assets of the public servant cannot be withheld on account of fiduciary relationship, since as per Section 44 of ‘The Lokpal and Lokyukta Act, 2013’, it is mandatory on the part of every public servant to make a declaration as to his assets and liabilities. Moreover, the information, which is required to be disclosed under any enactment and/or any provision of law, cannot be held to be given under fiduciary relationship. The CIC held that the details about a public servant's assets were required by law to be submitted to the government, and as the public servant would own these by means of his earning as a public servant, it cannot be held that the details of his assets are private or that their disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the information which has been shared with the respondent organisation about the assets of Mr Birendra Jaiswal can be shared with the appellant.
Comments
The stand of the Information Commission has been varying on the issue of disclosure of the assets of a public servant. This order appears to be contrary to Supreme Court decision in Girish Deshpande case.
Citation: Kamal Kishore Arora v. Ministry of Commerce and Industry Intellectual Property Office, Delhi and Trade Marks Registry Mumbai and Delhi in Decision no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203/03169, Date of Decision: 18/03/2020
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. 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 was compulsorily retired under FR 56(j) vide Order No. A-47012/2/2016-HRD-I dated 10.05.2018 and sought the copies of complete notes and correspondent portions of the relevant file/files in regard to decision taken for his retirement. The PIO refused to provide the requisite information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act alleging that since the total information contains a combined report of the Committee regarding all the persons who had been considered and recommended for Compulsory Retirement under Rule 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. The Appellant submitted that the PIO could have provided the information after applying the doctrine of severability as embodied in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act. He claimed that the information would enable him to represent his case before the Representation Committee or to seek redressal before the Court of Law against the decision to retire him under FR 56(j). The CIC perused the relevant files during the hearing. While the CIC was in agreement with the contentions of the PIO that every single note-sheet is related to all the four employees who were subjected to compulsory retirement, however, the CIC observed that the portion of the notesheet in which a final decision was taken can be supplied to the appellant, since he himself was one of the employees who were subjected to Compulsory Retirement as he was retired on the basis of a report of the Review Committee. With regard to the correspondence portion of the files, the CIC held that the material on the basis of which a decision was taken to compulsory retire the appellant can be supplied to him as such material/documents would be in relation to an individual employee only. The CIC instructed the PIO to obliterate the name/s of Review Committee members and/or details of other employees who have similarly been retired under FR 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972 and Rule 48 of the Rules and supply the portion relevant and referring to the appellant.
Comments
Compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) has often been challenged before the Courts. Even though it is prerogative of the competent authority to decide about the compulsory retirement of an employee in public interest, the employee is well within his/her rights to obtain details/factual background which led to such an action. Such information cannot be denied to him, in terms of principle of natural justice.
Citation: R C Kalra v. Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade/CPIO(HRD - I), Ministry of Commerce & Industry in Decision no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/155663/03171, Date of Decision: 31/03/2020
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. 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 alleged that there were irregularities in the dividend distributed to the beneficiaries by the ITI Colony Welfare Committee (Gas Agency) and sought information about the dividend distribution. The PIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant cannot be given as the disclosure of the information sought may cause a breach of commercial confidence. He further submitted that the dividends are paid as per the decision of IOC and there is possibility of unrest among different unions if this information is made public. The CIC ruled that disclosure would not breach commercial confidence of respondents and the third parties.
Comments
Any process should be transparent to ensure fairness in the system. It is the responsibility of the public authorities to pro-actively disclose information to ensure faith of the citizens in the system.
Citation: Ramkaran Singh v. CPIO ITI Limited in Decision no.: CIC/ITILT/A/2018/146255/02498, 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. 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 date on which Magadh University Bodhgaya, Bihar was given permission by UGC for conducting MBA and related information was sought from the UGC. On a query by the CIC, reliance was placed by the PIO on DoPT OM dated 24.09.2010 which advises the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. The CIC issued a strict warning to the then PIOs and the Nodal Officer for delaying the transfer of the RTI application. The CIC ruled that the PIO’s reliance on the OM of the DoPT dated 24.09.2010 is misplaced in the light of Sec 6(3) provision of the RTI Act.
Comments
Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the PIO of the public authority to which such application is made, shall transfer the application within five days from the date of receipt of the application (in full or pin part to that other public under intimation to the applicant.
Citation: Rajdeo Ram v. University Grants Commission in Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/158929/02885, Date of Decision: 13/02/2020
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. 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

Appellant filed RTI application seeking information about the status of Vigilance Enquiry against Shri Balraj for alleged filing of false affidavit and related information. The Respondent submitted that similar matter was heard and adjudicated by the Commission earlier in CIC/DELJB/C/2017/156869 dated 16.05.2019 and that the investigation in the case was completed as on date. On being queried regarding the compliance of the aforementioned order directing the PIO to send a reply afresh to the Complainant within 2 weeks, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent. The CIC instructed the Respondent to ensure the compliance of the earlier order pronounced by the CIC and provide a revised reply to the Appellant within a period of 02 weeks from the date of this order under intimation to the CIC failing which penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act may be initiated.
Comments
This case shows that the Information Commission does possess an independent mechanism to ensure compliance of its own orders. The number of cases where the PIO has not complied with the directions of the CIC is likely to increase in the absence of fear of penalty.
Citation: Shri MadanSain v. PIO, DJB in Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/131952, Date of Decision: 14.02.2020
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. 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 requested for information regarding Prof. Dheeraj Sharma’s recruitment in IIM, Ahmedabad including the academic background and documentary evidences of the same. The PIO submitted that whatever information was available was provided to the appellant. The appellant requested for inspection of the relevant documents. The CIC observed that the information sought by the appellant was regarding a third person namely Prof. Dheeraj Sharma which is purely in the nature of personal information of a third party and thus exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC cautioned the PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and ensure that such kind of mistakes do not occur in future.
Comments
Disclosure of third party information without giving a third party notice indicates the pathetic level of knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. IIM, Ahmedabad, being the premier management institute of the country, is expected to set example in all fields. The irreparable loss caused to the third party by the disclosure of information which is beyond the scope of the RTI Act cannot be undone.
Citation: Nirmalya Bandyopadhyay v. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in Decision no.: -CIC/IIMAH/A/2019/114008/02862, Date of Decision: 12/02/2020
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. 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 rules/guidelines etc. regarding the appointment of Postmaster as CAPIO in various sections of post offices and duties assigned to them. The appellant submitted to the CIC that he received the requisite information but is aggrieved due to the inordinate delay of almost 21 months. The CIC found that the PIO had correctly guided the appellant to the website of the public authority where the sought for information is available. The CIC held that the appellant’s contention regarding delay was unfounded.
Comments
If the information sought by an applicant is available in public domain such as on the website of the pubic authority, the CPIO is not bound to give hard copies of the documents. The CPIO should guide the applicant to the website of the public authority giving the specific link of the page where the information is available.
Citation: Girish Prasad Gupta v. Department of Posts in Decision no.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/151473/02692, Date of Decision: 22/01/2020
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

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.