RTI Corner

The appellant sought data on customer satisfaction ratings for SBI services from its inception to the current date and asked for the categorization of ratings by type of service and other related information. The PIO provided certain information and clarified before the CIC that data sought on certain points of the RTI application was not available in the desired format. The CIC upheld the order of the CIC. The CIC brought it to the notice of the respondent that in a series of matters filed by the same appellant against a different public authority i.e IDPL (File nos. CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/612395 and CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/604666) an order was passed to veracity of the appellant’s BPL status. The CIC advised the respondent to exercise due caution with respect to the future RTI application received from the appellant relying on his BPL status.
Comments
There is no specific section of the RTI Act, 2005 or rule which prescribes whether the verification of the BPL status should be done, if the PIO has doubts regarding the same. If there are any suspicions, the PIO could ask for the BPL certificate to verify the status of the RTI applicant.
Citation: Rachhpal Singh Saini v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2024/602064; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
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

The appellant submitted that an arrear was calculated for refixation of his pay. The payment arrear details were prepared by the respondent division and sent to Asansol division duly vetted by Accounts. In this regard, the appellant sought the certified detail of arrear calculation in tabular sheet and the certified Copy of the calculation sheet sent to Asansol division. The PIO provided certain information and replied that the copy of the calculation sheet may be obtained from Asansol division. The CIC observed that the Respondent has not provided complete information to the Appellant and the reply is incomplete, vague and misleading. Merely stating that the information sought is available with some other department does not suffice the information being provided under the RTI Act. If the information sought by the Appellant is not available in their department, then the Respondent should have transferred the RTI application of the Appellant to the concerned department. The Respondent has neither transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act nor was assistance sought as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the Respondent to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned PIO along with consolidated statement which includes due, drawn and balance amount to be paid and provide information to the Appellant, free of cost, within four weeks failing which to show-cause within this period as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under the RTI Act.
Comments
This order of the CIC is unusual - It contains a direction to the PIO to perform certain functions with a built in show cause notice in case of failure to perform the direction.
Citation: Asim Kumar Dey v. North Eastern Railway, CIC/NERLG/A/2024/600144; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
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 whether a ration card holder can be given ration if his fingerprint or iris authentication on the POS machine fails. He sought for the procedure in this regard seeking copy of the relevant circulars. He further sought information about the procedure to provide ration to a disabled ration card holder. There was a delay in providing the information. The PIO submitted that the RTI application was filed on 26/4/2023 and the reply was prepared by the Policy Branch but it could not be dispatched due to a fire incident occurred in May, 2023 and the file was bundled up with the other files. The reply was provided to the RTI applicant on 02/05/2024 and also, a Memo was issued to the erring official i.e. MTS of the branch on 02/05/2024 with the direction to submit his reply within three days as to why the RTI reply was not dispatched within time. It was submitted before the CIC that a lenient view may kindly be taken in the matter keeping in view the circumstances in which the error occurred and the official has already been warned to be careful in future. The CIC was not convinced with the reasons mentioned for delay in reply provided by the Respondent because no documents or FIR copy has been annexed with the written submission to substantiate the explanation claiming occurrence of fire incident at the relevant time. The PIO was directed to file a revised updated written submission detailing the reason for delay in replying to the Complainant beyond stipulated time. In the spirit of the RTI Act, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act was issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of information as sought in this RTI application and related Rules, Circulars, Office Orders, Bye Laws, etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain
Comments
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WP (C) No. 990 of 2021 adviced to disclose to the beneficiaries of the Public Distribution System particularly PwD beneficiaries regarding the provision for facilitating ration distribution to them through other members of the family or through authorized representative. Such information should be displayed at all the Fair Price Shops and the same will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Citation: Ashok Kumar v. Food, Supply and Consumers Affairs, CIC/FSACA/C/2024/129241; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025
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

The appellant sought for the GPF Final payment, Interest, reasons of pending of GPF final payment etc. but did not receive any reply from the PIO. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO remained absent despite of having received the prior notice for the hearing. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide the information sought by the Appellant, except which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CIC took grave exception to the delay caused by the PIO in not providing any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame and also for the unexplained absence during the hearing. Observing that such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act, the CIC directed the PIO to file a written submission detailing the reason for not providing any reply within the time bound manner and for the unexplained absence during the hearing before the Commission.
Comments
It is unfortunate to see that the PIO’s fail to reply within the prescribed time limit and do not attend the hearing physically / online before the CIC. These actions invite unpleasant action and undermine the authority of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Shri Arup Sengupta v. Border Security Force, CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/108310; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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

The appellant asked for the certified Xerox copies of a particular office Tender. The PIO replied that the information sought is huge, and asked to visit the office to verify in person after advance intimation. Before the CIC, the respondent submitted that since the information requested is voluminous, and considering that the M-Book is a critical accounting record that must be maintained with care, the appellant was requested to visit the office during working hours to review the information. However, the appellant has not visited the office to inspect the information as of today. The CIC observed that an appropriate reply has been provided by the PIO and no further action lies.
Comments
Copy of a tender is usually published in Newspaper or website and hence, a soft copy should be available with the office. It is not understood how it can be termed as voluminous and in place of a copy of the tender, an inspection is being provided.
Citation: Shri D DHANANJAYA v. Archaeological Survey of India Archaeological Survey of India, CIC/ALSOI/A/2024/108144; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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

The appellant claimed double deduction of income tax in which only one deducted amount has been refunded. He submitted to the CIC that neither complete desired information has been provided to him nor the deduction of taxes in Form 16A/ 26AS statement for the FY 2022-23 was reflected by the respondent (Railways) till date. He further contended that the PIOs never took the pain to present the case before the CIC on its own rather they sent their representatives to plead cases which is not in the spirit of the RTI Act. On query from the CIC, the respondent admitted the error shown in the Form 16 A by not showing the deducted tax amount in the appellant’s 26 AS statement of F.Y. 2022-23. She stated that their Chartered Accountant has been asked to reconcile the statement, and volunteered to redress the grievance of the appellant thereafter. The CIC concluded that the reply is vague and evasive. The PIO is expected to have applied his mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act from the concerned department in addressing the issue raised by the appellant. Instead of doing the needful, the PIO washed their hands off by keeping the complaint of the appellant pending till date which ought to have been redressed by reconciling the account at the stage of PIO reply itself. The CIC directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application to provide relevant information, free of cost, within four weeks. Under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, the CIC directed to investigate this matter through Senior Divisional Officer other than Finance and Accounts. In doing so, the Appellant be associated in the investigation, and if lapse is found in the matter, the Respondent Public Authority is to fix responsibility on delinquents. Report of the inquiry along with supporting documents shall be shared with the appellant, free of cost, and also uploaded on the link provided in the Commission’s hearing notice within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
Deduction of income tax is done from the seeded PAN card number of the assessee with an auto fetched systems where there is little chances of error. Perhaps, the mistake caused coupled with vague reply and absence of any remedial action led to such a strong order.
Citation: Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, CIC/NWRLY/A/2024/100624; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
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 applicant sought for information from Bank of Baroda about freezing of his Saving account and related information. The PIO denied the information claiming it as exempt from disclosure under section 24 of the Right to Information Act and harped on the exempt status of Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Gujarat as per relevant notification during personal hearing before the CIC. The CIC took grave exception to the absurd and grossly misleading reply and observed that the Bank of Baroda has cited Section 24 of the RTI Act as though it is an exempted organization and the same is unacceptable and is considered as a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act without any reasonable cause. A notice was issued to the then PIO why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing a grossly wrong and misleading reply. The CIC further observed that since the RTI queries specifically sought for information related to freezing of his bank account, which is very much the domain of the bank in terms of being the concerned record holder and not CBI and even if the record holder was solely CBI, then there should have been a transfer of the RTI Application as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. There is nothing contained in the RTI Act that empowers the PIO of the Respondent bank to claim exemption on behalf of CBI and even if that were the case, the PIO did not even bother to specify the same in his reply. A notice was also issued to the PIO to explain as to why the reply of the then PIO was being mindlessly endorsed even at this stage, impliedly sharing the onus of having provided the wrong & misleading reply. The CIC directed the PIO to now provide a revised point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application.
Comments
It is a classic case which indicates ignorance of the PIO about the provisions of the RTI Act. All readers are strongly advised to read these case laws to learn about the common mistakes which may render them liable for penalty.
Citation: Nilesh R Gupta v. Bank of Baroda, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/620207; Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
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 for the certified true copy of the rules and guidelines governing the matters connected to the compassionate appointment in the MES. The appellant asked for the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered a "dependent" of the deceased employee of the MES. Further, the appellant sought to know if "multiple dependents" of the deceased employee of the MES are eligible for the compassionate appointment, how is the "priority” created for them? He sought for the priority list in "chronological order.” The CIC observed that no reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application which shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the CIC’s notice of hearing by not appearing before it.
Comments
The guidelines regarding deciding the order of preference of taking up cases of multiple dependents should be made available on the website of the organization.
Citation: Marge Lombi v. Military Engineer Services, CIC/MESER/A/2024/600673; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025.
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

Statement of Account and other related information was sought by the appellant. The PIO replied that the Query was not clear and seeking confirmation does not fall under the purview of ‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, you are filing continuous RTI Applications one after another which is clear misuse of provisions of RTI Act. A Recovery Suit has been filed against you by the bank, and the information being sought is to mislead the undersigned. Such action shall disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of RTI Act. Moreover, it is also observed that seeking information on behalf of Company without Resolution passed by the company is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act. In the second appeal, the CIC observed that even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries under reference is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the arguments of the Respondent are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act, particularly in the context of over emphasizing on the pending recovery suit or that the Appellant could access records through a different channel etc. The CIC cautioned the Respondent that the PIO ought to restrict themselves to the definition of information as envisaged under Section 2(f); the Section 8 exemptions as well as availability/unavailability of information. Any rejection of a RTI Application ought to be strictly premised on the applicable provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012 alone and not any other extraneous considerations. In cases where the CPIO seeks to rely on arguments like repetition and misuse of RTI Act, then allegations of such magnitude ought to be sufficiently supported with relevant proof in terms of details of past record of RTI Applications and Appeal(s) and the replies provided thereupon or atleast any reference of decisions issued by the CIC in matters of the same Appellant with respect to the same public authority.
Comments
Some PIO’s tend to reject RTI applications on grounds which are not specified under the RTI Act. In many instances, the PIO is rejecting the application as being repetitive and therefore, amounting to misuse of the RTI Act. As this case provides the guidelines for such occurrences, it would be highly relevant for the PIOs.
Citation: N. K. Gupta v. Indian Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/119412 + 117836; Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
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

Photocopies of documents issued to any department, including file notings, employee signatures and related information was sought by the appellant. In compliance of CIC’s order dated 16.02.2024 in the case no. CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/622452, an opportunity for inspection of records was granted to the Appellant, but he chose not avail the opportunity. The PIO informed that the appellant was an employee working as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai. His case of dismissal is currently pending with this Department and he files RTI applications with this Department to know about the progress of his case. The CIC directed to grant another opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant with respect to his queries stated in the RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time.
Comments
If an appellant has not availed the opportunity of inspection of records, there appears little to be gained by offering another opportunity to inspect the documents. The issue whether the PIO is justified in claiming that information is not available has escaped the scrutiny of the CIC.
Citation: Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane v. Department of Economic Affairs, CIC/DOEAF/A/2025/604540; Date of Decision : 04.03.2025
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

For the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar, certain examination was done. The appellant submitted the representation towards Question No. 97, as the first answer key published the right answer was given option C and the revised answer key mentioned the right answer as option A. The appellant requested to provide a copy proof which justifies the answer A is correct and what is the existing practice in East Coast Railway for stores and works matters. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory as the Respondent has not provided the documentary proof to the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO-cum-Additional Chief Medical Director to provide documentary proof to the Appellant within two weeks.
Comments
The PIO is sometimes faced with a dilemma whether providing a “justification” amounts to creating an information and whether the same is covered under the definition of “information” as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. This case law should be read along with Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act which reads, ‘provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.’
Citation: Kumar Swet Kamal v. Office of the Principal Chief Medical Director, Rail Sadan, Bhubaneswar, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/652155; Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
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 to know from the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway whether the Assistant Divisional Engineer is competent to authorize the termination of service of a Trackman and other information. Respondent prayed the CIC to grant him time to file written submission enumerating the facts of this case in detail to facilitate due assistance to the bench in disposal of this appeal. The CIC severely admonished the conduct of the Respondent as he did not bother to file written submission despite praying for the same through his representative before the bench. The CIC observed that the Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief by issuing a favourable order despite having indulged in bigamy. The CIC deemed it fit to refer the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration in the form of lenient view being taken by subordinate officers in such a serious matter as bigamy.
Comments
It is a case where the RTI appeal has taken a spin, or rather a googly. Instead of providing any information, the case may turn into an examination of what the junior officers decided in the case of bigamy.
Citation: Ved Prakash Meena v. Office the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/139716; Date of Decision : 06.03.2025
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