RTI Corner

A complaint dated 17.12.2024 for non-compliance of CIC’s order dated 22.07.2024 was heard by the CIC. In the order dated 22.07.2024, the CIC had admonished the casual conduct of Mr. RP Yadav, Supt.-cum PIO, Social Welfare (South), GNCTD, Delhi and had directed to revisit the RTI Application and provide a revised reply. The CIC noted that there is a substantial delay in compliance with the order and the respondent failed to explain the reasons for the delay. The CIC referred to the criteria for processing or sanctioning of the application, under the Financial Assistance to Persons with Special Needs (popularly known as Disability Pension). The CIC noted that Ms. Madhu (Appellant’s niece) is a physically challenged person; an orphan; a member of scheduled caste; a girl child; unmarried who cannot carry out her daily activities without assistance; and has no independent means of livelihood. The CIC observed that “The extraordinary circumstances and adverse conditions faced by Ms. Madhu establish her as the weakest of the weak and poorest of the poor, being the most deprived citizen whose case deserved extra sensitivity, and it certainly could not have been dealt with in an ordinary manner by the respondent public authority in the department of Social Welfare. The appellant, being her aunt, is the only support Ms. Madhu has”. For the loss, harassment and detriment suffered by her, the Department of Social Welfare was directed by the CIC to pay a compensation of Rs. 92,000/- to the appellant within a week.
Comments
In this case, the application for compensation of Disability Pension to Ms. Madhu was forwarded to the Deputy Director (FAS), New Delhi and was pending on the date of hearing. The case was dealt with in a very casual and insensitive manner as per the CIC and the action was condemned. The CIC observed in the order that the insensitivity as established based on the records is appalling to put it most euphemistically.
Citation: Ms. Devki v. Supdt. (South), Department of Social Welfare, New Delhi, CIC/DSWGD/A/2023/119725; Order dated 14.01.2025
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
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 installation of Digital Programmable Water Fountain with RGB Lights and other related information. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that the PWD has not informed the amount of photocopy charges which is to be deposited to obtain the information. The CIC observed that it is a serious lacuna on the part of the Respondent in giving incomplete information to the Appellant. Not informing the exact amount of photocopy charges and the process for depositing the same amounts to obstruction of information on the part of the Respondent under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PWD to be cautious in future and ensure that such lapses do not recur. The CIC further noted that the first appeal of the Appellant was duly received in the office of the Public Authority and directed the Respondent to be careful and sure while making any submissions before the CIC. The CIC directed to inform the exact number of pages which is to be given under the RTI Act along with total amount and mode by which the same is to be deposited by the Appellant. The Respondent was directed to provide information to the Appellant within a week from the date of receipt of payment. The FAA was further directed to ensure compliance of the order.
Comments
The PIO must be cautious and inform the applicant about the quantum of fee to be paid along with the details of calculation how the amount has been arrived at. In this case, the CIC could have taken resort to Section 7(6) of the RTI Act to order providing the information free of cost to the applicant due to the delay. Section 7(6) reads, ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits.
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
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 cut-off for Environmental Sciences in the context of certain selection. The PIO denied the information claiming that it is spread over many files and not specific too. Providing such information will require huge effort in creation/compliance and therefore, it is not possible to provide the information. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that NTA is a relatively new body and the delay in replying to the RTI Application is also attributable to the time taken in setting up the RTI mechanism. The CIC observed that the PIO has tendered a baffling submission about the RTI machinery being still under process in NTA even in the year 2023. The NTA formed in the year 2017 cannot as a public authority under the RTI Act claim that it entailed over 5 years for the implementation of the RTI Act in NTA. The CIC directed that a copy of this order be marked to the Director General, NTA to take note of the adverse observations in this regard. The Director General, NTA was directed to take necessary corrective action to ensure that the PIOs and FAAs are instructed strictly to adhere to time stipulations prescribed under the RTI Act and at no point in time will the post of PIO or FAA be left vacant. The PIO was directed to revisit and provide a proper reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available cut-of marks or categorically state the unavailability thereof free of cost. The PIO was strictly warned to ensure in future that any document that is placed on the record of the CIC should be accompanied with a proper covering letter as the CIC cannot be expected to decipher the relevancy of the documents sought to be relied upon by the PIO without any reference or explanation.
Comments
If a public authority has pending RTI Applications and First Appeal(s) without a mechanism to deal with them, it would be a mockery of the statutory right to information enshrined upon the citizens. All pubic authorities must take steps as required under the RTI Act to ensure such strictures are not passed against it.
Citation: Avik Paul v. National Testing Agency, Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/625942; Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
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 regarding the date on which a particular postal order was allegedly encashed by the Jhansi Development Authority (JDA). The PIO replied that the sought information is not available. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that it is not possible to provide the information sought by the applicant due to non-availability in their office. Since the appellant had addressed the postal order in question to JDA, the postal order in question must have been cashed by them through a post office, therefore, the information sought can be obtained from JDA Office only. Further, the records are kept till 18 months only and the said IPO pertains to year 2018, and hence the information was not preserved till that time. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the PIO does not contain any reference to the record retention policy or the preservation period of the records. Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish a revised reply mentioning their record retention policy for weeding out the records.
Comments
Had the PIO given the details of the record retention policy, the whole sequence of first and second appeal could have been avoided. Hence, all PIO’s must ensure a proper reply at the initial stage to avoid unnecessary proceedings.
Citation:Smt. Saira Bano v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/623911; Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
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 that he was aggrieved by denial of legal aid and had sought information with respect to the same. He was not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent and requested that the Respondent may be directed to consider his plea seeking legal aid to pursue the litigation filed by him. The CIC observed that the Appellant’s application seeking free legal aid had been already declined by the Scrutiny & Evaluation Committee and he had been duly informed accordingly. The CIC further observed that the scope of the RTI Act does not extend beyond providing information as available in official records. Therefore, delving into the question of reason behind and/or correctness of denial of legal aid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is irrelevant as it falls outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Comments
The PIO can only be expected to provide the facts as available on records. However, Section 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act directs the public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Citation: Shri Gajender Nath v. High Court Of Delhi Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Second Appeal No. CIC/DSLSA/A/2023/134118/HCDEL; Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
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 he had been serving as Branch Manager in the Vikas Nagar Branch (PNB) of Nainital for 6 years and a complaint was filed against him concerning a dishonored cheque. He further argued that an investigation was conducted in the complaint and despite being the aggrieved party, copy of the report was not shared with him. The PIO of Punjab National Bank submitted that an investigation was conducted in the complaint as per recommendation of higher authorities. However, the report contained details regarding certain commercial operations carried out by the respondent bank, hence, the report was denied to the appellant as per provisions under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the information concerns the appellant and non-disclosure of the same would not only adversely affect the rights of the appellant being the aggrieved party, but would also amount to violation of principles of natural justice. While the exemption claimed under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act may be applicable to certain portions of the report, the PIO is at liberty to redact the said portions as per procedure of severability laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the Bank to re-examine the matter and disclose a redacted copy of the averred report after blackening out details exempted under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, if any, reflecting the broad outcome of the report to the appellant.
Comments
Ther have been many cases where an application has been filed under the RTI Act seeking copy of the investigation report. The application may be filed by the complainant, the accused or a third party and usually the public authority tends to deny the information.
Citation: Yogesh Kumar Goyal v. Punjab National Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/128777; Date of Decision: 06.11.2024
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 issue before the CIC was whether to hear the appeal in cases where the RTI application, first appeal and the subsequent second appeals was filed collectively by two citizens. The CIC referred to Section 6 (a) of the RTI Act, which stipulates that a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. The CIC observed that in the instant case, the RTI applications, the First Appeal and the subsequent second appeal, all have been filed collectively by two citizens, Pawan Gupta & Vijender Kumar Gupta and therefore, the RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, not being filed in individual capacity, are not maintainable. The CIC dismissed the appeal.
Comments
In case of Mr Samir Kumar Haldar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, CIC/SG/A/2010/001429/8585 dated 16 July 2010, the appellant had filed an RTI application which was also signed by seven other people. The CIC observed that the PIO's rejection was completely wrong since there is nothing in the law or the rules preventing more than one citizen from submitting the RTI application. The CIC referred to Section3 of the RTI Act which states, "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have Right to Information". The CIC had then ruled that the PIO's rejection has no basis in law.
Citation: Pawan Gupta & Vijender Kumar Gupta v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/140271; Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
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 GST returns were denied by the PIO taking recourse to the Section 158 (1) of CGST Act, 2017. The CIC referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat, (2020) 4 SCC 702, dealing with the disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was observed that while the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. The CIC agreed with the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information and held that intervention is not warranted in the matter.
Comments
The supremacy of RTI Act by virtue of Section 22 has been the issue for interpretation in different cases. Section 22 provides that the provisions of RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The proponents of the RTI Act have vehemently argued that information can be denied to an applicant by taking recourse to only section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act.
Citation: V Bethuran v. O/o the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai, File No: CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/130359; Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
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/

A complaint was sent via mail to Department of Financial Services, Insurance Division, regarding Mapping of Office of Council of Insurance Ombudsman at CPGRAMS portal and related information. The Complainant filed an application under the RTI Act seeking action taken report regarding the complaint. The Complainant was informed that there was already a mechanism for registering online complaints at the official website of council of Insurance ombudsman and the request made vide email was examined and filed. The CIC held that the respondent had replied to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. While exercising their wisdom, the Respondent provided the information as per record available with them. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint.
Comments
It has been observed in many cases that the complainants have used the RTI Act to follow up on a complaint filed on CPGRAM portal or any other forum. The PIO should reply to the RTI application informing whatever action has been taken on the complaint.
Citation: Ankit Tiwari v. Department of Financial Services, Complaint No. CIC/DOFSR/C/2023/652827; Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
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/

An application was filed seeking information about Distance Mode of education in Private Universities and particularly about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University, Katni. The CIC held it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the PIO had provided a template/cyclostyled response. Further, it is unnerving to note that even the FAA did not bother to pursue the RTI Application and the PIO’s reply. In response to a show cause notice for imposing penalty, a hearing was given to the PIO. Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, PIO argued about receiving 700-800 RTI Applications; being affected by all three waves of COVID on the personal front as well as having placed in public domain the FAQs in compliance with earlier orders of the Commission etc. The PIO persistently urged that the CIC should direct his competent authority to institute a system where RTI Applications are not left pending in the event of his unavailability or any incumbent’s unavailability. The CIC observed that throughout the course of the hearing, the tone and tenor of the PIO was exhibiting no regret and rather seeking to find flaws in the system even when his failure to peruse the RTI Application carefully or in having provided a cyclostyled response was pointed out with reference to similar cases. The CIC held that there was no reasoning tendered by the erring PIO, rather, the PIO’s inclination was to beat around the bush. For deemed refusal to provide the information without any reasonable cause and the callous conduct of PIO during the hearing despite the failure to plead his stand or justify the misconduct, the CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Dr. Amit Kumar Verma, PIO of UGC for the gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
In many public authorities, the number of PIO’s designated is not sufficient to deal with the quantum of RTI Applications received. There is no link officer to deal with the RTI applications in the case of the PIO proceeding on leave. This case law is a wake up call for all such organisations.
Citation: Mahendra Sahu v. University Grants Commission, CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/660420; Date of Adjunct Decision: 02.09.2024
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 contended that in recruitment for WCS post, the selection criteria followed by Rajasthan and other states are controversial in nature since every CITS course has its own importance, yet instead of following uniform selection process, some states are making rules according to their choice which creates confusion. To clarify this controversy, he sought the eligibility criteria for CTS trades, which has not been clarified in the reply by the Directorate General of Training. As the word “relevant trades” used in the eligibility criteria is not explained in clear words, the Appellant prayed to the CIC to direct the Respondent to give clear cut clarification regarding the term used “Relevant Trades” in the eligibility criteria. The CIC observed that the requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or atleast through FAQs with the concerned piece of information. An Advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act was issued to the Respondent Public Authority to firstly, disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” upfront on their website and secondly, to create a FAQ section on their website and also keep it updated so as to make it easy for a layperson to get frequently sought information and relevant orders/circulars.
Comments
Proactive disclosure by the public authority relieves the burden of RTI Applications, which are filed merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record. It is also in tune with the requirements of Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Citation: Vidya Sagar Prajapat v. Directorate General of Training, File No: CIC/DGTRG/A/2023/623500; Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
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 PIO submitted before the CIC that the instant RTI Application was filed without payment of the requisite fee and therefore, the same was treated as incomplete. On being asked by the CIC to provide any proof regarding the fee paid by him towards the instant RTI Application, the Complainant failed to furnish any proof for the same. The CIC observed that the Complainant has lodged the instant RTI Application without payment of the requisite fee and the same has also been informed to the Complainant by the PIO. Hence, the CIC held that the present petition is not maintainable being infructuous.
Comments
An applicant must adhere to the essentials of the RTI Act and not only pay the required application fee, but also retain the proof of payment of fee.
Citation: Bhushan Kumar v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Mumbai, CIC/CCUM1/C/2023/645312; Date of Decision: 06.09.2024
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