RTI Corner

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the CIC after approaching the FAA. The CIC observed that in many cases in response to queries about their non-response to RTI applications, the PIOs concerned say that they have no access to the online RTI portal. Hence, the outgoing PIO must inform the new incumbent PIO about the user id and password of the department online RTI portal. Moreover, the PIOs also complain about the malfunctioning of the portal. Hence, under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the CIC advised the PIO, Headquarter Delhi Jal Board, to oversee that proper training for the handling of RTI matters including access to online RTI portal and about its proper functioning is ensured to the CPIOs and others connected with the RTI implementation in the department. The CIC held that it is a matter of extreme importance for the implementation of the RTI Law.
Comments
It is the responsibility of the outgoing PIO to land over the charge of the pending cases and also user id and password of the department online RTI portal. If the same has not been done, appropriate action must be initiated against the culprit.
Citation: Mr. Avnish Kumar Tyagi v. Delhi Jal Board, CIC/DELJB/A/2022/656815-UM; Date of Decision: 22.05.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant appeared in a promotion test and sought the Online test marks, Interview marks, APAR marks, Group discussion marks, Total marks obtained and Minimum cut off marks for selection. The respondent informed that online test marks, and APAR marks were already informed to the individual. Further, at the time of promotion process, the complainant was charge-sheeted and as per the rules, some of the details like interview test marks, group discussion marks and total marks obtained by the complainant was kept in sealed cover. It was further submitted that since, the complainant was punished, so sealed cover was not opened. They informed that in the sealed cover process, if the applicant/charge sheeted employee exonerated, then only sealed cover was opened and given to him. While hearing the complaint, the CIC observed that point-wise reply was given by the respondent. The respondent while exercising their wisdom denied some information and that being so no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them and accordingly, the complaint was rejected.
Comments
The CIC has upheld the denial of information without mentioning the provision of the RTI Act under which the denial was justified. If the investigation was likely to be impeded by the disclosure of information, the same should have been specifically emphasized by the Commission.
Citation: Pramod Kumar Thakur v. Indian Overseas Bank, CIC/IOVBK/C/2021/140197; 17.05.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought to know if the record copy of the newspapers maintained by the Registrar of Newspapers of India (RNI) was in print format or otherwise; and some other related information was also asked. The PIO informed that the details of newspapers received in RNI as per section 11(B) of PRB Act, 1867 is updated on regularity portal on RNI website and RNI does not maintain copy(s) of newspapers. The Appellant contended that the PIO has provided a false and misleading reply and quoted Rule 5 of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956. The CIC observed that the PIO has reaffirmed the factual position of not maintaining copy of newspapers and is within the confines of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that action or inaction of RNI in not maintaining the said record cannot warrant any punitive action against the PIO under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before their competent authority to look into the allegations of the Appellant in consonance with the extant rules governing RNI.
Comments
It is a classical case which demonstrates how the RTI Act can be used to initiate action against non-compliance of any act or rules. Rule 5 (1) of the Registration of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956 reads that “Every publisher shall, within 48 hours of the publication of an issue of his newspaper, send to the Press Registrar one copy of the issue by post or by a messenger”. Sadly, in many cases, no copies of the newspapers are retained for future.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers of India, CIC/RNIND/A/2021/662365; 27/04/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought certain information about the enrollment number an advocate, authenticated copy of certificate of enrolment and other supporting documents, educational qualification etc. The PIO admitted that reply to the instant RTI Application was not provided, but submitted that their office has been receiving repeated RTI Applications asking for similar information about third parties, i.e personal information of other advocates and on all instances, their office has duly replied to these RTI Applications. In the instant case also, the information stands duly exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Noting that no reply was provided to the Appellant, the CIC observed that it is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIO was directed to send a proper written submission to the CIC along with supporting documents to show cause as to why no action should be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not providing any reply to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act and even thereafter.
Comments
The appellant had not claimed any larger public interest for disclosure of information which was sought. However, the PIO committed the folly of not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit and is facing a show-cause notice for his failure to do so. All PIOs must ensure timely replies to RTI applications lest they find themselves in a serious condition.
Citation: R Karanjai v. Bar Council of West Bengal, CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/134939; Date of dicsion: 03/05/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought detailed information about depreciation on import transactions, losses suffered, interest levied on buyers, insurance claim rejected, unsecured receivables, ratings, non-predetermined sales, FIR, Audit etc. The Advocates for the Respondents strongly condemned all the contentions of the Appellant contained in the Second Appeal and explained the replies provided to each point of the instant RTI Application. The CIC observed that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. The CIC held that it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the PIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. The CIC dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Rules are explicit that the word limit of 500 cannot be used to deny information to an applicant. The PIO should attempt to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and invoke relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act, if applicable.
Citation: Samir Sardana v. PEC Limited, CIC/PECLT/A/2022/624382; 27.04.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

A helicopter of IAF [Helicopter Mi - 17 V5 (ZP 5220)] was shot down by own missile on 27 Feb 19. A Court of Inquiry was conducted at Air Force Station Srinagar to investigate into the causes of the accident. The Court of Inquiry blamed the applicant for the accident and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Prior to the commencement of a General Court Martial, the applicant asked the IAF authorities to provide him with a copy of the convening order of the Court of Inquiry. When the same was denied, the applicant approached the IAF with an RTI application for the requisite information which was denied u/s 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. The applicant further stated that since the prosecution failed to present the convening order of the court of inquiry and the General Court Martial also did not peruse the same and overruled the defence plea of jurisdiction, the applicant approached the AFT (Regional Bench), Chandimandir, in OA (Appeal) 460 of 2022. Vide order dated 27.04.2022, the AFT directed the IAF to supply the order convening the court of inquiry to the applicant through his counsel. During the hearing, the PIO submitted that the said convening order was given to the appellant in compliance with the AFT’s order. The appellant further submitted that the IAF approached the HC of Punjab and Haryana and secured a vacation on the stay of the GCM, however the AFT order dated 25.05.2022 has not yet been overruled. The CIC observed that disclosure of a copy of the convening order of the court of Inquiry to the applicant is pending adjudication before the Punjab and Haryana HC as per the appellant’s own admission. Though the case is not under the RTI Act, however, the information sought is the same. Therefore, at this stage direction for any disclosure would vitiate the proceedings pending before the HC. As far as the CPIO and the FAA’s plea for denial of information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is concerned, the facts of the case suggests that the same is related to security and strategic information which cannot be disclosed and the apt exemption clause for denial has been invoked, therefore, the denial is accepted.
Comments
If the matter is already pending with the High Court, there is nothing left for the CIC to decide.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. 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 regarding seniority list of MATE (SSK) (Direct recruitment) in MES and whether the same are command wise. The CIC perused the records and observed that on 29.06.2022, the appellant was informed that the information sought is not clear. However, on receipt of the CIC notice, a suitable reply was sent to the appellant. The CIC issued a strict warning to the PIO to be careful and avoid delayed and irrelevant replies.
Comments
Every PIO must adhere to the RTI Act in word and spirit. A PIO may not come across as a lenient Information Commissioner who may pardon delay with only a warning.
Citation: Parmjeet Singh v. South Western Command, Commander Works Engineering, File no.: CIC/MESER/A/2022/616435; 06/04/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The certified copy of the file noting, orders, instructions, directions, minutes of deliberations, etc. pertaining to a particular DO letter was denied u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act being internal and sensitive in nature. The Commission clarified during the hearing the previous orders are not binding per-se in entirety as every case has to be seen in relation to the circumstances of that particular case. It is only the ratio decidendi part of the order which is binding and taken into consideration while deciding questions of law based on identical issues and facts. Therefore, in the absence of the discussion on the question of law, the decision referred to cannot be relied upon by the Commission. After examining the facts of the case, the CIC ruled that the file notings relating to the matter in hand are disclosable to the appellant. The CIC gave the liberty to the respondent to apply severability u/s 10(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The earlier orders of the CIC must
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information with regard to his applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. The CIC observed that the query of the appellant viz. “As to when the appellant will be offered appointment on compassionate grounds” is futuristic and hypothetical. Regarding the query whether the appellant is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, the CIC observed that the same is interrogative in nature and therefore, the queries are not covered under Section-2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Whenever an application is received, a PIO should examine whether it seeks “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The responsibility of a PIO is limited to providing what is covered under the term information.
Citation: Nandkishor Gohe v. Military Engineer Service, File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2022/117292; 06/04/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant has sought the following information with regard to sanction of family pension in respect of Late Sh. Roop Narayan Jha. The PIO replied seeking certain documents which were not provided by the appellant who preferred to file a second appeal. The CIC observed that the appellant shall submit the documents proving his relationship with the deceased as well as the legal heir proof of him and his father to justify the entitlement to receive information. On receipt of the requisite documents, the PIO shall send a suitable reply to the appellant.
Comments
On the demise of an individual, the information relating to him still remains private and only the legal heirs are entitled to obtain the information.
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

In response to a request for information pertaining to the appointment of outsourced manpower, the PIO requested the appellant to visit the office for inspection. Thereafter, the appellant conducted the inspection and the relevant documents were given by the PIO on 29.11.2021. The CIC concurred with the submissions of the PIO that the copies of all the complaints received by the respondent’s office cannot be provided as it may contain certain personal information, therefore, it is barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC also concurred with the submissions of the PIO that the documents submitted by the firm during the tender process cannot be put in public domain as it is third party information. The CIC held that the copy of the contract containing terms and conditions of the tender once finalized can be provided to the appellant as it is not barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Comments
A copy of the contract containing terms and conditions of the tender can be provided after the award of the tender subject to taking recourse to the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005. All the sensitive and personal information, if any, should be severed after giving a notice to the third party.
Citation: Rajat Narayan v. Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), File no.: - CIC/CRRID/A/2022/615059; Date of Decision: 15/03/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information with reference to sanction of his permanent TA claim which appeared to have been restricted to 2 AC train fare. He asked for a copy of authority for restricting his claim to 2nd AC train fare instead of restricting the same to shortest route of his entitlement i.e. Air Travel. He further demanded a copy of authority for deduction of taxi fare of Rs. 3060/- (Rs.1560 and Rs.1500) against the said TA claim. After going through reply of CPIO, the CIC observed that it is the lowest air fare that has been taken into account and not the train fare as stated by the appellant in his second appeal. During the hearing, he explained that the restriction is partly based on the air fare and partly on the train fare. The CIC held that though it appears that what was sanctioned was as per the appellant’s entitlement, still point no 1 needs to be properly clarified to the appellant. The second point regarding the taxi fare has been explained properly in terms of the appellant’s entitlement.
Comments
The quantum of money spent on a CIC hearing would be more that the disputed TA entitlement in this case. It is often seen that deductions are made in the TA bill by the account departments without clarifying the reasons for the same. The claimant is left on his own to decipher the reasons for the trimming of the claim.
Citation: Prathipati Bhanu Prasad v. O/o the Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Roads), File no.: CIC/CGDAC/A/2022/610238; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com