RTI Corner

The appellant sought data on customer satisfaction ratings for SBI services from its inception and other information. The PIO replied that the information is not compiled centrally in the ordinary course of business and not readily available in the material form. The collection of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Before the CIC, the respondent clarified that data sought vide the RTI application is not available in the desired format. The CIC held that in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, there is scope of intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal. The CIC brought it to the notice of the respondent that in a series of matters filed by the appellant against a different public authority i.e IDPL, in 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 respondent was advised to exercise due caution with respect to the future RTI application received from the appellant relying on his Below Poverty Line (BPL) status.
Comments
Some unscrupulous elements indulge in misuse of the RTI Act by making a false claim of BPL to obtain information without paying any fee. The Public Authority should train its PIO's to detect such individuals and deal with them in accordance with law.
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 sought information about implementation of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi asking for the pay fixed, Date of enhancement of the rate of pay and other related information about fellow officers. The PIO denied information under Sec 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act informing that the information sought is a classified information which also include personal information of third party and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity ог interest. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the Hon’ble CAT, vide order dated 31.05.2023 has passed an order in his favour in which the Respondent were directed to extend the similar benefits as granted to the Applicants in O.A. No. 1981/1996, in term of the directions contained in order dated 03.06.2002, if they are similarly situated and otherwise eligible and that is why he needs this information to compare his case with similarly placed employees. The Appellant highlighted that there is a big difference in the amount that has been paid to him as compared to others. The PIO informed that several correspondence were made to IHQ of MoD (Army) in the similarly placed case as well as in the instant case regarding non-feasibility towards convening review DPC for re-fixing the seniority in the lower grades at this belated stage without any requisite documentss. The CIC ruled that exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not available and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised reply along with requested information.
Comments
To differentiate between personal information and public activity, the CIC relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023.
Citation: Rama Nand Prabhakar v. AOC Records, PIN - 900453, C/o 56 APO; CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/605929; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
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 expressed grievance regarding non-payment of dearness allowance and family pension and requested for clarification from the PIO as to how payment for the months January to April 2023 was sanctioned. The CIC observed that the information sought is speculative in nature and the same does not qualify as “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Holding that the information is not available under the custody of the respondent PIO, the CIC found no scope for further intervention in the matter and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 can be used to obtain uncover inaction or information but by itself, is not a channel for grievance redressal.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/111643; 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 documentary requirement for a bus driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and other information was sought. The PIO stated that on directions of the FAA, the reply along with copy of Recruitment Rules has been provided to the appellant. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO tendered his apology for delay in reply by explaining that delay occurred due to reorganization of units within DTC and resultant reshuffling of staff and records. He added that it was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. He further agreed to file a written submission explaining the reason for delay in giving reply with supporting documents on the CIC’s website and will mark a copy of the same to the appellant. The CIC accepted the apology and condoned the delay in the absence of malafide on the part of the PIO holding it as unintentional.
Comments
The simple deed of sending a timely reply could have saved the PIO from the embarrassment of tendering an apology and would have also avoided the appellant from going through the hassle of filing a complaint. The time frame for filing a reply to the RTI application should be strictly followed by all the PIO’s.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation, CIC/DTCOR/A/2024/601322; 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

Information about a contract to build a website and related information was not provided claiming that that no contract/MOU/Agreement/etc to build the website was found in the file. It was informed that the matter is very old and related files have been physically destroyed as per Regulations for the Army 1987. Further, all efforts have been undertaken at the Army Headquarters Southern Command to investigate the details as asked by the applicant. However, personnel involved in the said matter have been posted out as routine turnover/ retired. The CIC observed that the information sought was denied by the Respondent on the plea that it was more than 10 years old and the same was destroyed as per as per Regulations for the Army 1987. However, no documentary evidence of the destruction of record or the specific record retention schedule applied in this case has been provided. The CIC directed the Respondent to search the records once again and if the documents were not found, they should provide a copy of the Record Retention Policy and a copy of weeded-out record destruction certificate, to the Appellant. If the records destruction certificate is not available, then the Respondent should file an affidavit to the CIC regarding non-availability of the documents sought in the RTI application.
Comments
If the records are being destroyed as per the record maintainance schedule, the destruction memo must be maintained and the copy of the same provided to the RTI applicant.
Citation: Kamal Kashyap v. HQ Chief Engineer, HQ Southern Command, PIN-908541, C/o 56 APO, CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/614534; 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 sought details of non-compliance towards certain appeals communicated to CIC. The CIC observed that the case is premised on cumbersome and incoherent contents placed on record by the Appellant and the grouse of the Appellant is his alleged pending appeal(s)/letter(s). The CIC noted that the averred replies were mere reference letters quoted by the Appellant in the preface to his RTI Application and yet the Appellant chose to argue at length against these replies in the First Appeal when these were not even the actual RTI queries. The CIC commented on the sheer enormity of the jumbled contents of the instant RTI Application and the fact that it is framed as though the Appellant is filing a grievance petition, and not being clear about what exactly the reference letter(s) are. The CIC pointed to the preface to the RTI Application which refered to different letter(s), thus causing much of unwarranted confusion and making the task of deciphering the desired information onerous. The CIC dismissed the appeal remarking that RTI Act did not envisage the exercise of right to information in such a frivolous manner.
Comments
Sometimes a PIO comes across an application containing ramblings making it nearly impossible to comprehend what is the information being sought. Such inarticulate disjoined applications makes it nearly difficult to provide any meaningful information.
Citation: B Parameshwar v. Central Information Commission, CIC/CICOM/A/2024/113340; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
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 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