RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking certain information about payment by SEBI of the amount deposited by the Sahara India, progress of the case pending in the Supreme Court, Different schemes run by Sahara India etc. He filed a First Appeal alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. During the second appeal, the PIO informed that SEBI had submitted 22 status reports before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is primary holder of the information. However, the information regarding the process of refund and cut-off dates for the processing of the application have been provided to the appellant. The CIC held that PIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the Act.
Comments
The question as to who is the holder of information if a public authority has transferred some documents to another public authority has often been raised. In case of judiciary, the PIO often transfers the RTI application to the Registrar of the Court under section 6(3) of the RTI Act asking the registrar to directly provide the information to the applicant.
Citation: Mohan Sahu v. Security and Exchange Board of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2023/100957; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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 certified copy of passport renewal application of his wife Mrs. Shaily Mishra Mittal along with documents submitted for passport renewal. The PIO replied that the Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Appellant submitted before the CIC that he wants to know the marital status indicated by his wife in her passport renewal application as it is his apprehension that false information regarding her marital status has been indicated. He contended that the information sought was not exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as he was seeking details regarding his legally wedded wife who cannot be considered as a third party as their marriage is presently valid. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided as the Appellant is seeking personal information of a third party contained in her passport, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
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

Appellant stated that the document on the basis of which the Competition Commission arrived at a conclusion in Case 25 of 2020 was not provided. PIO stated that the Appellant was seeking information pertaining to a quasi-judicial decision for which inspection of records was offered as per the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 which was not availed off by him. PIO further stated that in case the appellant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the decision, he can exhaust the remedy available to him to appeal against the decision before the NCLAT. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been given by the PIO. The Appellant is at liberty to avail inspection of records as earlier offered to him on a mutually convenient date and time.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
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

Respondent was of the impression that the information sought in RTI application was already replied as similar information he had already asked in some other RTI application. Hence, he returned the RTI application stating that the information requested has already been supplied previously. Later, on perusal of files, the CPIO understood that the information requested in this petition is different from previous petition and expressed his regret for the mistake assuring the CIC that such situation will not recur in future. The PIO submitted that it was not done wantonly or in malafide intention. The CIC observed that the Respondent was unable to respond correctly to the queries raised by the Appellant, subsequently, the FAA had furnished appropriate information. Considering the detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory statement of facts filed by the Respondent before it, the CIC directed the PIO to send a copy of the written submission to the Appellant. The CIC closed the matter directing the Respondent to submit a compliance report in this regard before it..
Comments This case law offers relief in those cases where the PIO has inadvertently acted against the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Shri Vanniaperumal A v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CIC/NIEPM/A/2023/605558/MOCAF; Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
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 filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, SEBI. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of response, the Appellant filed a second appeal with the CIC. The Appellant submitted that he is only conversant with Tamil language and submitted that he has not received any information in the matter. SEBI submitted that it did not receive the RTI Application under reference and only the First Appeal addressed to SEBI was received. Since the RTI Application with reference to which the First Appeal was filed was never received by SEBI, the First Appeal was treated as a fresh RTI Application. For the want of proper RTI fees, the Appellant was informed that SEBI can accept RTI Application accompanied with RTI fees through prescribed mode and he was also advised that he can also file a fresh RTI Application. The CIC observed that the Appellant has filed the First Appeal before the FAA, SEBI without even filing any RTI Application with SEBI. The Registry has also erroneously arrayed SEBI as a Respondent in the matter, therefore, the role of SEBI is dispensed with. The appeal was rendered as not maintainable.
Comments
An applicant must file the RTI application and appeal with the same public authority. In case the application has been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, then the appeal is liable to be filed with the FAA of the public authority to whom the RTI application has been transferred.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
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 his RTI application, the appellant sought information on 24 points wherein he pointed out which points pertained to which PIOs. The CIC observed that the appellant has indicated 4 PIOs to whom the queries pertained and despite knowing this fact, he has filed single RTI application before Education Department mentioning all the PIOs of different zones with the expectation that PIO of Department of Education would collect the information from all the PIOs concerned and provide it to the appellant. The respondent informed that the appellant is habitual RTI applicant and filed various RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals under the RTI Act just to harass the public authority. It may not be out of place to mention that total 27 second appeals/complaints have been disposed of by the appellant either by his name or his son’s name (Ullas Jain) before the Commission as on date and in most of the cases, he did not appear despite service of hearing notice. The Commission observed that the information as available with the respondent has already been provided to the appellant and no interference from the CIC is warranted. Further, the CIC advised the appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Comments
Many PIO’s have been transferring the RTI application to different zones either out of fear of penalty or under the erroneous belief that they are expected to compile the information and provide to the applicant. It causes unnecessary transfer of RTI application across multiple levels which is not mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: V K Jain v. Dy. Director of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2022/668667; Date of Decision: 22-03-2024
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 filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the CIC. During hearing, the attention of the CIC was invited towards the following clarification mentioned in the written submissions filed by SEBI, copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant. The clarification read, “…the Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence would not fall within the purview of the said Act…” After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, the CIC observed that the Appellant has not filed the RTI Application with any public authority as required under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The CIC has preferred to rely on the submissions of the respondent without referring to the definition of a public authority as per section 2(h) of the RTI Act. any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Govern­ment is covered under the definition of a public authority. As per section 2(a) of the RTI Act, "appropriate Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government. It is apparent that Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/134030; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
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 applicant referred to reply of earlier RTI application where it was mentioned that CGHS Rules are being followed for settlement of medical claims including dental medical reimbursement as applicable in Delhi NCR. The applicant submitted that since there is no clear circular or guidelines of FCI Headquarters, New Delhi for reimbursement of dental medical treatment. Therefore, Swamy's Medical Attendance Rule mentioned in the letter issued by FCI Headquarters is followed in most of the Offices in FCI while dealing with medical reimbursement of employees of FCI. The applicant contended that there is a huge confusion in most of the FCI Offices as to which Circular / Guidelines / Letter issued by FCI, Headquarters, New Delhi has to be adhered while dealing with reimbursement of medical claims. He requested to provide the clear information / FCI Headquarters Circular or Guidelines regarding any kind of medical reimbursement (which includes dental medical treatment also). The respondent replied that as per RTI Act, PIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries / clarifications or interpretation of information is outside the preview of the RTI Act. The CIC held that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent
Comments
Legally, only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the PIO. However, it is an Obligation of public authorities under section 4(1) (d) to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Citation: Shri CHANDAN v. Food Corporation of India, CIC/FCIND/A/2022/647480; Date of Decision : 18.03.2024
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

Mr. Shamim Alam filed an RTI application seeking information in relation to Non-Judicial stamp paper of the Denomination of Rupees 10 bearing a distinct number. The PIO replied that the disclosure of the sensitive details of the stamp paper(s) would adversely affect the economic interest of the country and would not serve any larger public interest. The information was denied by seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. First Appeal was filed by Mr. Shakil Ahmed as a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder of the Mr. Shamim Alam which was rejected by FAA. Upon a remark by the CIC during second appeal regarding the appropriateness of the FAA’s order in having rejected the First Appeal filed under SPA by Shakil Ahmed, the Representative of the Appellant feebly stated that the erroneous First Appeal stands rectified as the Second Appeal has been filed by Shamim Alam only. The CIC observed that the FAA has appropriately rejected the First Appeal as being not maintainable as the RTI Application and First Appeal are filed by separate individuals. Further, since the channel of First Appeal has not been properly exhausted by the Appellant, the instant second appeal is also not maintainable.
Comments
As far as possible, a person who desires an information should file the RTI application and appeal under his / her own name and signature.
Citation: Shamim Alam v. Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, CIC/SPPRE/A/2022/151493; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
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 applicant sought certain information from the Security Paper Mill like the standards for testing of parameters of Density, Brookfield Viscosity and Non-Volatile Solid in respect of Polymer (Flocculant). The PIO denied the information claiming that the actual and complete procedures can't be shared with or provided to others because it was their internal confidential documents and being a Security Organization and being a NABL Accredited Lab, they have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization. The CIC observed that the information has been denied without even invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. Repeated opportunities were afforded by CIC to justify the denial under any of the exemptions envisaged under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act, yet, the Respondent continued to harp on the ‘approval of competent authority’ and eventually quoted Section 8(1)(d) in an unconvincing manner. The CIC observed that what has been sought by this Applicant is merely the testing procedure followed by Security Paper Mill Quality Control Lab (SPM QC) for testing of certain parameters in respect of a product, Polymer (Flocculant), which is procured by Security Paper Mill (SPM) through public tender. SPM accepts or rejects the product supplied by vendors on the basis of testing carried out using these procedures and these testing procedures are, therefore, a matter of public interest, since vendors’ interests will be adversely affected if material is rejected on the basis of inappropriate / non- standard testing procedures. The information sought does not pertain to any of the core activities of SPM and does not affect security interests in any manner. Holding that this information must be provided and cannot be withheld on the ground of confidentiality, the CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
Without properly invoking section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act, a PIO should not reject the application seeking information. If the interests of a vendor are affected by the procedure followed by the public authority, the public interest may be claimed to seek the details of such procedure.
Citation:Mahasweta M. v. Security Paper Mill, M.P., CIC/SPMIL/A/2022/635766; Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
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 PIO of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office and transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO of Bangalore Development Authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which is separate Public Authority under the State Government, The CIC observed that the PIO has given a timely response to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter. The CIC held that had the Appellant been actually interested in getting information, he would have approached the transferee Public Authority to know the actual status of the information. But the Appellant in the present case filed the first appeal with present Respondent Public Authority. This shows that the Appellant wants to pressurize the Respondent to create information which is not in their record. Further, the CIC held that the Appellant cannot raise fresh queries/issues at the stage of first appeal/second appeal. The directions of the First Appellate Authority to the PIO to go through the concern raised by the appellant in the first appeal and take further action were set aside.
Comments
An appeal should be filed with the FAA of the organisation which is holding the information. A PIO can file an appeal against the orders of his/her own FAA.
Citation: Vasanth Kumar V M v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, CIC/MOENF/A/2023/613465; Date of Decision: 18-03-2024
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 for information regarding Lease Deed dated March 30, 2016, executed between Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) and Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank) wherein JIL transferred to IDBI Bank a land measuring 50.26 acres through Debt Asset Swap (DAS) in order to liquidate their out-standing liabilities amounting to Rs.253.32 Crores. He asked whether any transaction, in part(s) or full, by sale or transfer, took place between March 30, 2016 and August 31, 2023. The appellant argued that after March 30, 2016 and upon DAS, all Ownership and Tangible Rights to the said landed property remained with IDBI Bank in its fullness and hence, there remains No Fiduciary Relationship or Larger Public interest between IDBI Bank and JIL. Further, it is wrong on part of for IDBI Bank to invoke Larger Public interest as there are more than 22,000 Home Buyers of JIL. The appellant alleged that the IDBl Bank has not come out clean and transparent on the information sought only through substantiation of tangible right of JIL in the said property. The CIC directed to provide the available information to the Appellant.
Comments RTI has emerged as a potent tool to obtain information for those affected adversely in a commercial dispute.
Citation:Sqn. Ldr. S. D. Mitroo v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/147236; Date of Decision: 23.02.2024
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