RTI Corner

The appellant sought information regarding reasons for non-delivery and returning of his two letters, name & address of the postman who was supposed to deliver the aforesaid letters etc.. The PIO informed that since the addressee was not available, those letters could not be delivered and there was no investigation was conducted in this regard. The Central Information Commission observed that name of the postman who was supposed to deliver appellant’s letters had not been provided by the Department of Posts. Therefore, the Commission directed the to provide name of the postman who was demarcated to deliver the articles in that particular zone/circle/area, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Comments
The RTI Act has been innovatively used by citizens for grievance redressal and improving the quality of service.
Citation: Navaratan Mal Jain v. PIO, Department of Posts in CIC/POSTS/A/2017/194596, Date of Decision – 16.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

IThe complainant sought attested copies of his answer book, some confidential documents and other related information. The CIC noted that the RTI application was received on 03.01.2014 and it was transferred to the Electrical department on 16.01.2014. The evaluated answer sheets were in the custody of the Electrical Department and the same were provided by PIO (Electrical) finally on 18.06.2015. The custodian of the confidential documents was the gazetted section and the Electrical Department and both were asked to furnish the requisite information but the delay occurred due to their non-performance in furnishing the sought for information to the personnel branch. The CIC observed that complete information had since been furnished to the applicant but the delay in furnishing the requisite information was due to wrong return of the transferred RTI application by the PIO (Electrical) and due to the time taken for collecting details from gazetted section which was the custodian of the relevant records. The CIC directed them to submit an explanation for the resultant delays of 14 months and 17 months respectively for furnishing the requisite information at the next date of hearing before it which is scheduled on 04.04.2018 at 04.45 PM.
Comments
In case of any malafide denial of information, a penalty of Rs 250/- per day extending to a maximum of Rs 25,000/- may be imposed on the PIO under the provisions of the RTI Act. The onus that the denial of information has been in good faith lies on the PIO.
Citation: Amarjeet Singh v. Northern Railway in File No.: CIC/BJ/C/2016/000001, Date of hearing: 20.12.2017, 22.02.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding the total amount of black money declared, state-wise and city-wise figures under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 was sought. The PIO informed that the Scheme was maintained with absolute confidentiality about the declarants and the amount declared. Sharing of such information in public domain might cause the declarants vulnerable and jeopardize their security. The CIC noted that the CBDT has refrained from issuing any statement regarding number of declarations received, amounts declared or taxes paid under the Scheme in order to ensure complete confidentiality and upheld the denial of information.
Comments
The confidential handling of declarations made under the Scheme is of utmost importance to the Income Tax Department and such information can be disclosed only if the larger public interest warrants so. A matter of public interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Citation: Mr. Vimlesh Kumar Verma v. Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in Appeal No.:-CIC/DOREV/A/2017/102892-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information in connection with a particular tender - technically sanctioned estimates alongwith all document, Comparative Statement prepared after opening of technical bids, reasons for long delay, decision until its opening and issues related thereto. The CIC noted that the tender process had since been completed. The CIC advised the Respondent to suo-motu disclose all tender related information pertaining to this matter on their website keeping in view the larger public interest involved in such matters. The CIC noted with serious concern that the FAA had also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and advised the public authority to be alert and cautious.
Comments
The act of entering into an agreement with any other entity by a public authority is a public activity and every citizen is entitled to know on what terms the Agreement has been reached. The Division bench of Jharkhand High Court in State of Jharkhand v. Navin Kumar Sinha and Anr. held that once a decision is taken in the matter of grant of tender, there is no justification to keep it secret. The appeal against the aforementioned decision was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Citation: Mr. M. R. Sonaje v. Office of the General Manager, ISPN in Appeal No.:-CIC/ISPNR/A/2017/191825-BJ, Date of Decision: 02.02.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information regarding the number of seats allowed by the CBSE to B.D. Public School for intake in Class IX and XI and issues related thereto. The PIO provided the student description furnished by the School as per its online application no. EX-02558-1516 and informed that no further information was available with them. The CIC observed that the Appellant had raised very pertinent issues regarding permissions granted by the CBSE for maximum student intake by the School which concerned the interest of the public at large. The CIC felt that periodic and up-to-date disclosure of such information could render the entire admission process transparent since the public would be informed about maximum intakes allowed to a school and take an informed decision in pursuing the admission process. The CIC advised the CBSE to instruct the schools affiliated to the Board to periodically suo motu disclose all information regarding the Student Intake and other such related information by them to the Board as also upload details on their website keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and the larger public interest involved in the matter.
Comments
Schools are the centres of learning and one of the most important sections of public life which should voluntarily disclose the information as per section 4. This decision would enable more parents to demand disclosure from schools.
Citation: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar v. CBSE, Delhi in Appeal No.:-CIC/CBSED/A/2017/195101-BJ, Date of Decision : 16.02.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant wanted the basic procedure following which warning/red alert regarding weather conditions is issued by the Indian Meteorological Department. He sought the list of dates and details of all warnings/red alert issued by the department, the reason of warning/red alert ex. Heavy rain, earthquake, cyclone, storm, etc, the place for which it was issued, and whether it turned to be true or false. As the information was voluminous, the PIO sought a clarification from the appellant regarding the specific area and period pertaining to which the appellant wanted the information. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a detailed report to the appellant explaining the procedure through which such alerts are issued by the Department and number of such alerts issued in 2017 that turned out to be true and number of alerts that failed.
Comments
Whenever a voluminous information is sought, the PIO should seek a clarification from the applicant to narrow down the request.
Citation: Chetan Kothari v. Indian Meteorological Department in CIC/IMETD/A/2017/180721, Date of Decision: 01.02.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought certain information about the contract employees. The CPIO informed that the attendance register and salary slip of the employees of contractor are maintained by the contractor and hence, the custodian of these documents is the contractor. These documents are not available with them and they have nothing to do with the employees of the contractor. The CPIO informed that the records were called for from the contractor two times but he did not produce any document and he has been blacklisted. Furthermore, they do not have any instrument to force the contractor to call for the documents legally. The Commission observed that due to absence of any terms & condition, regarding calling for the record, in the agreement arrived between the NPCIL and the contractor, the respondent is not able to force the contractor to produce the documents. The CIC advised the respondent to look at their agreements and make change, if necessary, for calling for the record from the contractor.
Comments
This case law offers a lesson for drawing an agreement for all those government departments where contract labour is hired for any work.
Citation: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Devatiya v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., in Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2017/185052 CIC/NPCOI/A/2017/185055, Dated of Decision: 18.10.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information regarding officers against whom Show Cause notice had been issued by the TDS Officer under Section 201 (1)/ 201 (IA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of short deduction of TDS from payment made on account of Professional Charges and issues related thereto. The CIC noted that the appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure. The denial of information was upheld.
Comments
For seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a “larger public interest”. Unless the PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.
Citation: Mr. Bipin Kumar v. Office of the Income Tax Officer Srinagar in Appeal No.:-CIC/DITIN/A/2017/178317-BJ, Date of Decision: 15.01.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought certified true copies of documents provided by respondent to the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) for defending the case of sexual harassment and other related documents. The information was denied claiming that it pertained to the ICC enquiry proceedings and as per Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, ICC Act, 2013 it is prohibited from publication. The CIC held that the information relating to the proceedings & findings of ICC while dealing with any incidence of sexual harassment, must be voluntarily made available to the victim. The Section 16 (ibid) does not eclipse the right of a complainant / victim of sexual harassment to access the same under RTI Act. The Section 16 (ibid) merely eclipses the right to know of the public at large, press and media only. Thus, a complainant/victim of an incident of sexual harassment can access information through the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of any enactment are to be interpreted in a manner which furthers the cause or purpose behind its enactment. Section 16 is enacted as a safeguard measure to check further aggravation of traumatic and stigmatic experience of a victim of sexual harassment against by unwarranted disclosure of her identity.
Citation: Reshma M G v. All India Radio in File No.: CIC/AIRCL/A/2017/101742/SD, Date of Decision: 04/01/2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought for the copy of the entire file relating to a particular matter including the note sheets. The respondent submitted that the information has been provided to the appellant after severing the identity of the officer. After hearing the matter, the CIC held that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the FAA.
Comments
The Delhi High Court in the case of UPSC v. Shatmanyu Sharma in W.P. (C) 4079 of 2013 vide decision dated 10.10.2013 had observed that the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified.
Citation: Ms. Mita Pattnaik v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation in Decision No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001701 Dated 06.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

An application was filed seeking copies of educational qualification certificates, caste certificate submitted by Shri Awadhesh Kumar at the time of appointment in the school. The CIC observed that the PIO had provided copies of caste certificate & educational qualification pertaining to third party to the appellant. The copies of certificates of educational qualification or caste is third party information and should not be provided before resorting to Section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to be cautious in future in dealing with the RTI matters and advised to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
With a large number of Public Information Officers of state and centre being untrained, the likelihood of disclosing personal information inadvertently is fairly high. There is little which a person can do in such cases except to claim damages.
Citation: Shri Shiv Govind v. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Case No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003876/MP, Date of Decision: 19th July, 2017
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/

The appellant sought copies of recruitment Rules of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, copies of sanction posts, vacant posts and promotion policies of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, advertisement published for recruitment/tenders etc. The appellant acknowledged that he had received 1000 pages of documents but claimed that they contained either repeat pages or blank papers without providing the information sought by him. It was articulated that the information sought by him was of general nature which would have been placed in the Public Domain in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 relating to suo-motu disclosure by the Public Authority. The CIC advised the Respondent to suo-motu disclose such recruitment rules/policy in public domain in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act to ensure transparency, credibility, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority.
Comments
A voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and filing of RTI Application by the members of public who wish to seek information should be an exception. The Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications so that the general public need not resort to the filing of RTI Application.
Citation: Mr. S. Murli Manoharam v. National Automotive Testing & R&D Infrastructure Project, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises in Appeal No.:-CIC/NATRI/A/2017/117839-BJ, Date of Decision: 30.11.2017
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/