RTI Corner

The appellant sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to this son admitted in IIM Rohtak (IPL) in 2023. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished that the institute had no record of documents requested by the appellant. The Commission noted that documents sought in the RTI application are not available with the respondent and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant.
Citation: Brijesh Kumar Sharma v. Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMRO/A/2024/644911; Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
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 the IIM Bangalore to provide the exact and specific reasons regarding why he was not called for the interview for PhD programme. The PIO informed that the Pre-Pi score of the appellant was lower than the cut-off required for the CFI process under the NC-OBC category. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the parameters of shortlisting the candidates had not been provided by the PIO. Moreover, the reasons for not calling him for the interview had also not provided till date. The CIC held that the appellant has sought reasons, which does not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The Hon’ble Bombay High court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008), held that the definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
Citation: Anshul Bisen v. Indian Institute of Management–Bangalore, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMBL/A/2024/631898; Date of Decision: 10.10.2025
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

Information about the policy and instructions regarding the allotment of Government accommodation (Residences, Covered Car Parks, Camp Offices) to the incumbent or Ex. Ministers of Cabinet/State/ Deputy or equivalent status, incumbent or Ex. Member of Parliament between May 1, 2001 and October 30, 2023 was sought by the appellant. Further information about who had overstayed in the Government accommodation, the penal rent collected and copy of notices served etc. was also sought. The PIO replied that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous as the Appellant is seeking information for 22 years which requires collection and collation of data and providing the same would divert the time and resources of the public authority as per the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The CIC declined to intervene in the matter observing that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure. The CIC pointed out that public interest is different from public curiosity.
Comments
There has been a long standing discussion about defining the boundaries of Public Interest - Information which is of interest to the public and something which is in the public interest. It raises a pertinent question whether any amount which has been condoned for overstaying in government accommodation should be disclosed.
Citation: Saurabh Kumar v. Directorate of Estates, File No: CIC/DOEST/A/2024/124871; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
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 requested pertaining to the selection of a student in the PGP 24-26 program. He requested to confirm whether Saransh Upadhyaya has been selected on a seat earmarked for EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota at IIM Ahmedabad. Alternatively, he requested to confirm the quota on which the selection has been done. The PIO replied that the information contains personal information of student. Hence, information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. The CIC noted that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the sought information is exempted under Section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. The appellant has to establish larger public interest to seek any personal information relating to a third party.
Citation: Satish Chhiber v. Indian Institute of Management: Ahmedabad, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMAH/A/2024/629101; Date of Decision: 10.10.202
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

Vide RTI application dated 29.04.2024, the appellant sought information about the Provident Fund Statement, PF trust being declared unexempted, his PF amount transferred to EPFO department etc. but did not receive any response. During hearing, upon the CIC’s query on not replying to the appellant within stipulated time limit, the respondent submitted that the earlier CPIO retired, and he has recently joined the respondent’s office and was not aware of the online RTI application. To this, the CIC questioned how an online RTI application can go unnoticed. In terms of the information to be furnished, the CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant vide written submission dated 07.10.2025. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Further, the CIC took a serious view of the fact that the respondent did not reply to the appellant within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act and issued a show cause notice to the CPIO as to why action should not be initiated against him/her for not replying to the appellant’s RTI request within prescribed time limit.
Comments
One of the basic tenets of the RTI Act is that an applicant should receive a reply within the prescribed time limit. With the digital tracking of the RTI Application, it is incumbent upon the PIO to reply as per the prescribed time period or face consequences.
Citation: Biju Soman v. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/HINAL/A/2024/134731; Date of Decision:15.10.2025
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 contended during telephonic hearing before CIC that he had sought the statements dated 13.09.2023 collected by the Delhi Police, but the same had been denied to him by the Police authorities under the pretext that it had been submitted before the Court. But the statements were not available even in the Court records. The Respondent agreed to search the said statements in their records and make the same available for the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO, O/o ACP Kalyanpuri to grant inspection of the relevant records pertaining to the queries raised by the Appellant, specifically the statements recorded by the Delhi Police on 13.09.2023, on a mutually convenient date and time. The CIC directed that copies of documents identified by the Appellant shall be provided to him upon payment of fees as stipulated under the Act. The Respondent were given the liberty to deny records containing any information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also apply provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while disclosing the records as sought by the Appellant.
Comments
While replying to an application, the veracity of facts must be verified by the PIO. A vigilant PIO would have exercised due caution before informing the RTI applicant that the documents have been submitted to the Court which was subsequently found to be factually incorrect, saving an embarassment.
Citation: Shri Vikrant v. Delhi Police, Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/643049; Date of Decision: 21.08.2025
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 a certified copy of the RNI Registration Certificate of "Dominican Ashram" vide Registration No. 46971/88. Before the CIC, the Appellant stated that the information has not been provided to him and it was wrongly denied by the then PIO ignoring the fact that it is a public document. The Respondent submitted that the registration certificate of registered newspapers are in public domain which can be easily accessed from their official website https://prgi.nic.in/registration-title-data-details/. During the hearing before the CIC, the Respondent opened the link on the computer system of the Bench and showed the e-certificate and also handed over a hard copy of e-certificate to the Appellant which was taken on record. The CIC held that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent to the Appellant during hearing which is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be thorough with the content accessible on the website of the organization failing which errors may be committed or, time may be spent on making available an information which has already been made public.
Citation: Jose Abraham v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/609589; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
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 filed sought the list of petrol pump functioning in the urban area of district Bareilly. Further, he asked about the land requirements with layout of one Pump, the details of pumps which not fulfilled the land requirements and related information. The PIO denied the information holding that the appellant has not disclosed the public interest warranting disclosure of such an information. The CIC observed that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and directed the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point-wise reply as available in their records. The CIC strongly recommended the IOCL to explore the viability of maintaining such information on their official website pertaining to list of petrol pumps functioning all over India and related issues regarding land requirement/measurement for allotment of petrol pump.
Comments
Making the information available in the public domain proactively is in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo-motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.
Citation: Shri Anand Singh Chauhan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), CIC/IOCLD/A/2023/626935; 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 sought the enquiry findings in relation to the complaints filed by her and her husband. The Respondent stated that it has been informed to the Appellant that since a court case filed by her is pending before the Court of Law, therefore, inquiry in her complaint was put on hold awaiting the final verdict of the law. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied on the ground that matter is sub-judice before Court of Law. She contended that no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court for non-disclosure of any information and the subject matter before Court of law relates to pay fixation while she through instant RTI application sought action taken report on her complaint of harassment by the concerned teacher. The CIC held that the initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know. The CIC observed that the only pertinent exemption from disclosure appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act. The PIO was directed to provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her and also advised to exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications.
Comments
The matter being sub-judice is not a valid ground for denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Seema Gupta v. Office of the Deputy Director of Education, File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/609275; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
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

Three registered post envelopes were returned to the sender (District Judge) without being delivered. With reference to three registered postal envelopes which were returned without affixing any remark on the envelopes, the appellant requested to provide the reasons for return. The Department of Post submitted that the three registered articles, referred to in the RTI application, were returned with remarks “receiver not at address”. Further, it was submitted that the reply sent in response to the RTI application was inadvertently sent at the incorrect address, hence, could not be timely delivered. However, on receipt of the return mail, they rectified the address and communicated the information to the appellant on 09.02.2024. The CIC observed that the respondent initially replied on 14.12.2023 but the same was not delivered timely to the appellant due to incorrect address. The CIC accepted the clarification provided by the PIO that the delay in response to the RTI application was inadvertent and had occurred on account of incorrect address being mentioned in the dispatch letter. Holding that due information has been furnished and the delay caused on the PIO’s part does not appear to be deliberate, the CIC disposed the appeal.
Comments
If the delay in reply by the PIO is unintentional and due to an inadvertent error, there is no penal liability as there is no malafide denial of information.
Citation: Sardar Ajit Singh v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/112391; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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 had worked on deputation for three years with CONCOR and sought information about the Foreign Service Contribution (FSC) due to which payment of his gratuity had been stopped. The PIO replied that the applicant may seek the information from the concerned Railway Administration and the detailed response can be obtained by the applicant from the concerned East Central Railway. The CIC observed that the denial of information by the PIO on both the points of RTI Application in one liner without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act depicts that this case has been handled badly which is contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. Observing that the PIO is expected to have applied her 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, the CIC commented that “This reply is as bad as possible”. The CIC held that inaction on the part of then CPIO and the present CPIO is prima facie established. As the then PIO had superannuated, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the present PIO for imposing penalty. Further, the Respondent was directed to re-examine the contents of RTI Application and provide a point-wise revised updated reply against all the points.
Comments
It is observed that some PIO’s try to wash their hands off by giving vague or terse reply. Such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information and is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act which may lead to punitive action against them.
Citation:Vijay Kumar Verma v. Container Corporation of India Ltd, File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/105017; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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 the date, month, year and time on which a particular order was passed, uploaded and further related information. Regarding the contention of the Appellant that information as furnished by the PIO is not a certified copy and same is without rounded seal & stamp in violation of the guidelines mentioned in OM No.10/1/2O13- IR dated 06.10.2015, the CIC observed that the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply which is duly signed by the PIO and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of FAA. The aforementioned essential details have been duly provided by the PIO in their reply and the OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015 does not require that the certified copy of the reply with a rounded seal should be provided to the RTI Applicant. In the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought certified copy of the document only at point No. 3 of the RTI Application in response to which it has been clearly mentioned by the PIO that no such document exists in their record. The CIC upheld the reply provided by the PIO.
Comments
If “certified” copies of certain documents are sought by the applicant, the PIO should be careful as such documents might be presented to a court of law as evidence.
Citation: Ms. Neha Chawla v. Supreme Court of India, CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/117161; 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