RTI Corner

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

The PIO denied information sought by the appellant claiming that it relates to internal communication of the Bank and is confidential in nature. Further, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Before the CIC, it was submitted that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and First Appeals and the same have been disposed of within stipulated time frame. It was informed that RTI applications of the appellant are an offshoot of a family dispute between him and his relative (being one of their staff) and the respondent authority is being dragged to such a personal dispute, which is a clear abuse of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent claimed that in addition to filing numerous RTI applications and complaints, the appellant had also been harassing the officials of our Zone by repeated calls and personal visits to the Branch/Zone. The Appellant has filed numerous complaints against the CPIO, First Appellate Authority of Ujjain Zone and even against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Head Office for exercising their functions under the RTI Act. The officials including the CPIOs are under threat of constant attack from the RTI Applicant for no fault of theirs. Malicious attacks are made on CPIOs through lengthy RTI Applications and Appeals. It was also submitted that the appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 20.09.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/128876 and order dated 28.11.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/141282. The CIC noted that the reply given by the PIO is evasive and misleading. The CPIO, without applying his mind, has simply denied the information as it pertains to their internal communication and most importantly, the CPIO has not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the above-mentioned points and furnish a revised reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses. Regarding the submission of the respondents of multiple RTI applications being filed by the appellant, the CIC observed that the said concern can be taken up in an appropriate matter in the future for want of any similar pattern of cases as well as in the absence of any specific reference of the number of RTI applications filed with the respondent.
Comments
A PIO must know the clauses of the RTI Act thoroughly and the denial of information should be only as per section 8 or section 9.
Citation: Premchand Bangaria v. Bank of India, Mumbai, CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/116770; Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
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 had filed an application in respect of rebate on House Building advance to him which was kept in abeyance since July 2017. He sought to know why the rebate was not granted by respected Regional Director of Education and the current status of his case. The PIO informed that the file regarding House Building Advance was returned to the Office of DDE (HQ). The CIC noted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the custodian of information i.e. PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), did not appear before the Commission despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and notices were issued to them. Thus, prima facie it appears that the information sought was deliberately withhold by the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), New Delhi. The CIC issued show caused to Shri Rajesh Joshi (DDE), HQ, /present PIO and Shri Devender Mohan, PIO (Zone-18), District West -B, to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant and also why compensation equal to the amount involved in the case should be awarded to the appellant. Both the PIOs were directed to submit their written explanations and also appear on the next date of hearing.
Comments
All PIO’s should keep a special track of files under submission if the information sought pertains to such files as it might be difficult to pinpoint as to who is the holder of information. Whenever a case is coming up for hearing, the PIO should invariably attend the hearing or seek specific exemption citing the reasons.
Citation: Yatendra Pal v. Directorate of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2023/650684; Date of Decision: 20.02.2025
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

While hearing the second appeal, the CIC observed that in many similar cases in the recent past, it has been noticed that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO’s and FAA’s, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID’s. An advisory was issued under section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIO’s and FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act. It was also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.
Comments
Vide Office Memorandum Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, dated 06.10.2015, the Department of Personnel and Training, had directed that the reply should contain the name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO. Further, the name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned in case of the first appeal. All public authorities should ensure compliance of the above instructions.
Citation: Devanshi Jay Kothari v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST & CX, Division V, Jamshedpur, CIC/CCESR/A/2023/143990; Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
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 submitted that after serving the chargesheet to certain officials, nothing has been beard so far and it is not known as to what happened to the chargesheets. He sought to know whether some major or minor penalty has been imposed or not and whether the embezzled amount in connivance with each other and on account of serious lapse on their part the loss caused to the State exchequer has been recovered. The PIO replied that the charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings, professional records etc. are all personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant appealed claiming that it related to a massive scam and records have been sought for in larger public interest. Upon being asked by the CIC as to whether the appellant was the informer/complainant based on which action initiated against the delinquent officials, he answered in negative. Considering the issue flagged by the appellant and in the light of larger public interest and a natural public expectations to know the broad outcome of a case which was in the public domain, the Respondent was directed by the CIC to inform the broad outcome of the final order passed on the chargesheet issued to the officials as also the final outcome of departmental disciplinary appeal as mentioned in the RTI application.
Comments
The copy of chargesheet and its outcome has often been sought by applicants. It has been debated whether it is a personal information and whether the same should be made available to the complainant or any other person.
Citation: Ram Lal Arora v. Executive Engineer (HQ), O/o Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Administration, CIC/ENGDP/A/2024/611452; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
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 RTI applicant had applied online on the Parivahan website (parivahan.gov.in) for issuing an NOC. On not getting a response, he filed an application under the RTI Act requesting to provide two duly stamped hardcopies of the NOC through post. The PIO replied that the NOC is approved today and the applicant can download the NOC from the website. The CIC observed that the appropriate reply has been furnished by the PIO. Noting that the PIO had abstained from the hearing despite being served the notice, the CIC admonished the conduct of the CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing.
Comments
It is a typical case where a citizen has used the power of RTI Act to make a government official perform a specific function beyond seeking information.
Citation :Keshav Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, CIC/STAUT/A/2023/649724; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
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 RTI applicant alleged that the registered scrap dealer in association with the ASI of the Transport Department, Delhi, instead of sending the vehicle to the registered scrapping yard, opens it at another location and sells its parts. He stated that this information can be verified through the CCTV footage of the registered pang yard. After the vehicle is picked up by the Transport Department's team, it is checked whether the vehicle has gone to the registered pang yard at the given address or been sent elsewhere. After a few days, the owner receives messages regarding the registration and related payment on the provided phone number. The applicant sought certain information relating to the same. The CIC held that the instant RTI application has not been adequately answered and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of RTI application and provide revised information. The CIC issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Transport Department, GNCTD, for (i) amending the concerned Rules to incorporate the provisions for inspection of seized end-of-life vehicles to its owner; and (ii) upfront disclosure of information regarding Rules, Bye laws, SoP, Guidelines, Office Orders governing RVSFs (Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities) under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain, to make it easy for a layperson particularly vehicle owners to get relevant information through website.
Comments
The Transport Department has ordered the registered dealer to retain the engine number and chassis number by cutting and preserving them. The guidelines for releasing end of life vehicle (ELV) seized as part of enforcement drive should be put in public domain. If section 4 of the RTI Act is implemented fully, it would relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Citation :V Singh v. Transport Department, Delhi, CIC/TDDEL/A/2023/649458; Date of Decision: 16.01.2025
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