RTI Corner

The appellant sought to know as to when his application will be placed for consideration before the Rajya Sabha. The CIC observed that The RTI Act does not cast any obligation on the PIO to answer queries, in which the seeker of information attempts to elicit answer to the questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. The CIC directed the PIO to forward the letter petition of the appellant dated 28.11.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Bihar under intimation to the appellant within 3 days of the receipt of the order.
Comments
The case shows how the drafting of the RTI applications affects eliciting proper response from the public authority. The applicant could have asked whether there are any norms for putting up a letter to the Rajya Sabha and for the body to consider it.
Citation: Santosh Kumar Pandit v. Parliament of India Rajya Sabha Secretariat, File no.: - CIC/PAROI/A/2022/137994, Date of Decision: 08/02/2023
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

Copies of CIRP forms of an Insolvency Professional submitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were denied by the PIO claiming that the said form and the accompanying documents were held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary capacity. The appellant contended that the information was related to public function and alleged that the Insolvency Professional was involved in committing serious financial frauds. The CIC ruled that the disclosure of sought for forms and documents is unwarranted and undesirable in view of the bar imposed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC assessed the institutional impact of disclosure of information and opined that the possibility of harm/injury emanating from disclosure outweighed the public interest.
Comments
The Central Information Commission is a creature of the RTI Act, 2005 which describes its powers and functions. The role of Information Commission is limited to providing information and for challenging the procedural rules, an appellant should approach the appropriate judicial forum.
Citation: Anil Kumar Ojha v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, File no.: CIC/IBBIN/A/2022/640485, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023
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 regarding the status of the complaint filed at IBBI under section 217 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Section 7 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The PIO submitted that the RTI application was rejected at the outset as it was not filed by a citizen but a body corporate. Referring to Section 3 of the RTI Act, the CIC observed that the right to information is available only to the citizens of India and there is no provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies. As the application was filed by M/s Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd., the second appeal is therefore disposed of as being inadmissible.
Comments
The Department of Personnel & Training published “Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005” in 2009 which mentioned that if the RTI application were filed by an office bearer of any legal entity, indicating his/her name, in such cases information can be supplied to him / her on the presumption that a citizen has sought the information.
Citation: UPPL Projects Pvt Ltd. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), File no.: CIC/IBBIN/A/2022/126256, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023
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

Information about an application for renewal of Notary was sought. The PIO submitted that he has assumed charge only recently and has not been able to locate the records related to the instant RTI Application. He further submitted that the notary cell was being shifted at the time from Shastri Bhawan and the records are therefore, lying scattered and is in the process of being digitised. He further sought for one more opportunity to find out the availability of the records. The CIC was unnerved at the absurdity of the submission of the PIO as the RTI Application under reference was filed on the online RTI portal vide Registration No. JUSTC/R/E/21/02460, and hence, there is no question of not being able to trace the same from the physical records. Further, it was apparent from the reply that Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor had been the incumbent PIO for close to a year now. Furthermore, the CIC noted that the Appellant has also denied receipt of any reply to the RTI Application when the said reply is readily available on the RTI online portal. The CIC took grave exception to the fact that both the parties misrepresented the facts of the case and have caused a gross disregard to the hearing proceedings. The appeal was dismissed while calling for the explanation of the PIO.
Comments
The case is a reminder of all that is expected from all the stakeholders to the RTI Act. The PIO conduct depicts ignorance of how to look for a RTI Application while the RTI appellant does not care to even find whether a reply has been sent.
Citation: Balaji Bhagat v. Department of Legal Affairs, File No: CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/612693, Date of Decision : 07/02/2023
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 complete list of tenders published for ALH production, tenders awarded, year wise expenditure statements and related information was sought from HAL through multiple RTI applications. The CIC observed that some of the replies by the PIO did not invoke any exemption clause in cases of denial of information. The information denied was not amplified or justified with proper exemption clauses under the RTI Act. Further, some of the information sought related to suo-moto disclosure and therefore, the reply given was grossly improper. The PIO failed to provide any justification for denial, as well as for not providing replies in respect of case. The CIC observed that the omission of the FAA in issuing not speaking orders and disposing of the first appeals is a matter of grave concern. Regarding the contention of the PIO that a total 44 RTI applications were filed, the CIC observed that there is no express bar on number of RTI applications that can be filed by a citizen. The idea to prevent frivolous litigation cannot be construed as preventing sincere applications seeking information related to Sec 4 implementation etc. The PIO was directed to provide a point-wise reply individually to the RTI Applications.
Comments
A PIO must invoke any of the sub-sections of section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act in case of denial of information failing which it may be deemed to be a willful denial of information rendering him liable for imposition of penalty. All applications must be replied to individually. All FAA must pass a reasoned and speaking order within the time limit if an appeal is filed to them.
Citation: Raghu S v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), File no.:- CIC/HALTD/A/2022/116372 + 19 others, Date of Decision : 10/02/2023
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

Information was sought about the recruitment and selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Commandant (Engineer) in ITBP. The PIO denied the information citing section 24 of the RTI Act and the FAA upheld the same. The CIC observed that the FAA did not decide the matter after taking into consideration the decisions (Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Harinder Singh v. SIC Punjab and Haryana and Ors WP (C) 22229 of 2011 and the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Manipur in Abid Hussain v. State of Manipur WP (C) 880 of 2019) which were mentioned in the first appeal. Furthermore, the order pronounced was devoid of any substantive reasoning and examination of facts. The CIC directed the FAA to re-examine the first appeal and pronounce a reasoned speaking order after granting an opportunity of fair hearing to the Appellant by 15.03.2023.
Comments
Many FAAs tend to ignore their responsibility as there is no specific penalty prescribed under the RTI Act on the FAA. A FAA must pass a reasoned and speaking order when a first appeal is received.
Citation: Shri Ajay Kumar v. ITBP; Second Appeal No. CIC/ITIBP/A/2021/139356, Date of Decision: 10.02.2023
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 the GST Registration details of all the parties/ individuals/ companies/ firms who have participated in a particular tender of SAIL, the date and time of reverse auction conducted for the said tender and other related information. The PIO did not provide any information initially and later sent a reply seeking photocopying charges for providing 125 pages. The PIO submitted that after the CIC notice, he coordinated with the custodian and a reply was received on 4 points and the reply for the remaining 2 points was awaited. The CIC directed the PIO to send a revised reply to the appellant on all the points and send the complete documents containing 125 pages free of cost alongwith the point-wise reply, after taking assistance from the custodian u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The PIO was lucky to have escaped without any show cause notice for imposition of penalty as asking for photocopying charges after a lapse of 30 days is not maintainable as per the RTI Act.
Citation: Avishek Kumar v. SAIL Collieries Division, File No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2021/135948, Date of Decision: 18/11/2022
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 records pertaining to appointment of persons on compassionate grounds and related information was denied by CISF u/s 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the queries raised by the Appellant constitute personal information related to officials who are third parties. Hence, disclosure of information with respect to such queries would be barred even under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Referring to the High Court decision in Director General and Anr. v. Harender, the CIC held that the expression “Human Rights Violation” as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend to all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters.
Comments
In most cases, the judicial pronouncements have been in favour of denying information relating to service matters in case of organisations beyond the purview of the RTI Act taking a strict interpretation of what constitutes human rights. It has been argued that if employees of an establishment cannot agitate their grievances before judicial forums, these organizations/establishments may become autocratic. In a judgment dated 22.03.2022, a division bench of Delhi High Court in UoI v. CIC, [LPA 734/2018] observed that the RTI Act is a tool which facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically. Holding that non-supply of the information/documents is a human rights violation as in the absence of the same, the RTI applicant would not be able to agitate her right to promotion, the Court directed to provide copies of the seniority list as well the minutes of DPC.
Citation: Shri Ashwani Verma v. CISF, Second Appeal No. CIC/CISFO/A/2021/156819, Date of Decision: 20.01.2023
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 Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application seeking information about the EPF has not been registered for want of appropriate Indian Postal Order (IPO). As the postal order was not drawn on the local postal office, it could not be encashed and hence, the PIO returned the application for the want of requisite fee. The initial IPO was returned and the Appellant was informed regarding the correct mode of payment but the Appellant did not adhere to the same. The CIC observed that the instant RTI Application has not been registered till date for want of mandatory fee through the appropriate mode of payment. Hence, the CIC considered the Second Appeal as ‘infructuous’.
Comments
The IPO should be drawn in the favour of the Accounts Officer of the public authority. If the name of the Office is not known, the name of the city may be mentioned on the IPO while stating the number of the IPO on the RTI application.
Citation: Rukmani Panigrahi v. Food Corporation of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/FCIND/A/2021/153974, Date: 20.01.2023
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 submitted before the CIC that the denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not correct as the third party against whom he had sought information had submitted fake documents, altering his date of birth to get recruited into the Army. He argued that the matter is of public interest and the information should be provided to him. The PIO informed that there is no documentary evidence regarding manipulation of date of birth in civil education certificate in respect of said individuals. The CIC observed that all the notings/ correspondence which took place while processing of the said complaint becomes personal information of that third party and except for the final outcome of the complaint, no other information can be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO was right in denying the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that the appellant had already filed an FIR which will take separate cognizance of the accusation if the accused is found guilty.
Comments
This case shows that mere allegation is not enough to invoked the clause of public interest. It has to be backed by evidence if the desires that the personal information be disclosed. Similarly, it has the contention in many cases that the file-notings should be disclosed if the person has been found guilty or otherwise.
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 had sent several applications before the Supreme Court and submitted that the same were considered/ treated as PIL applications and were uploaded on the website of Supreme Court (Grievance Management Column). He sought certified copies of entire records of the PILs filed by him in 2019. The Registrar informed that six petitions were received and diarised in the PIL section of the registry whose status may be looked at the Supreme Court website. He further informed that except 38511/2019, all the other letter petitions have been weeded out and provided the noting in respect of the one petition. The Appellant submitted that while he had filed only one application on 13.07.2019, status report of the Grievance Management column on the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications. The CIC observed that the reason behind the six applications has been narrated by the Appellant himself in his First Appeal stating that the six separate applications arose out of the same application being transferred from various public authorities viz. Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Law and Justice etc. So, the question raised by the Appellant about the multiplication of the application dated 13.07.2019 has been answered by him in his own First Appeal. It is also noteworthy that multiplication of the application is not the question raised by him in the RTI application. The CIC held that the query raised by the Appellant seeking certified copies of records relating to certain specific PIL cases have been satisfactorily answered by the public authority by providing information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. There is no legal infirmity in the response sent by the public authority, which requires any further adjudication, under the RTI Act.
Comments
The issue which has been overshadowed in the discussions is the fact that for only one application filed, the Supreme Court’s website indicated six applications with no outcome.
Citation: Shri Indrajit Biswas v. Supreme Court of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2021/141525; Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
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 prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal of one year may be condoned as the same was caused due to Covid pandemic in the country. The CIC observed that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The reason cited by the appellant cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second as the period from September 2020 to March 2021, the peak time of Covid-19, was already over and all the offices were functioning with basic staff. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the appellant has failed to give a sufficient justified cause explaining delay in preferring the second appeal, hence, the appeal is considered as time barred under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly, dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
Comments
Section 19(3) of the RTI Act provides a time limit of 90 days to file an appeal before the Information Commission and an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period if the Information Commission is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
Citation: Bakulkumar Vaghela v. Directorate General Defence Estate, File no.: CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/142789, Date of Decision: 17.11.2022
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