RTI Corner

RTI application was filed through online module seeking information about the muster roll. The respondent submitted before the CIC that the applicant is habitual to filling useless RTI applications in department "which has no relationship to any public activities or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant’s representative pleaded that information has been wrongly denied by the PIO ignoring the fact that Appellant’s name was included in the muster roll. Respondent stated that they receive humongous number of muster roll and each of which contains the attendance records of more than 100 of working staffs wherefrom it is difficult to severe the records of only one person i.e. Appellant. Each month there are several muster rolls charged to the account and voucher number is assigned to each. Hence, without the voucher number, the replying respondent will not be able to locate the sought for specific muster roll. The voucher number would be known to DDO i.e. AC, Shahdara South, Delhi as the disbursement has been made by his office and muster roll register is also maintained by their concerned department. The CIC held that the blanket denial of information by the PIO ignoring the fact that the Appellant has sought the muster roll and attendance records of his own along with other safai karamachari, is not appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act as he is entitled to know information regarding himself. The CIC directed to provide revised information to the Appellant concerning himself free of cost, after accessing the information from the actual custodian by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The Respondent was directed to redact that part of information which is exempted from disclosure and to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time.
Comments
In many cases in the past, the CIC has held that copy of muster roll should be provided. Those who are aware of the origin of the Transparency movement which led to RTI Act would recall the ‘Jansunwais’ by the Mazdoor Kisan Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). The MKSS uncovered various frauds like fake muster rolls, overbilling in purchase, underpayment of wages etc. by access to the official records and public documents.
Citation: Nikki Mukesh v. Office of the Dy. Controller of Accounts, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, CIC/MCDND/A/2023/124366, +/124367; Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
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

Questions regarding a raid by the enforcement team of a Discom and as to whether their actions, assessments were correct or incorrect were raised. The CIC noted that numerous second appeals/complaints are coming up for hearing related to DISCOMS where the it was earlier held that DISCOMS are Public Authority within the scope and meaning of RTI Act. The operation of the said order of CIC has been stayed on an appeal filed by the DISCOM through an interim injunction passed in the year 2007. The CIC noted with concern that matter is pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court since 2007, i.e. pending from 17 years, which is crossing almost a generation, which is of 25 years as given in The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. In the meantime, general public at large are facing numerous issues pertaining to public services provided by DISCOMS. In order to resolve such issues of general public, the Respondent Public Authority should approach the Apex Court for vacation of stay of order. The CIC further observed that in case of DISCOMS, large infrastructure of network of electricity lines was created using powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for “Public Purpose”. Therefore, the urgency to get the interim injunction vacated needs no further emphasis. The PIO was directed to place a copy of this order before the Competent Authority for appropriate action in the matter.
Comments
Judicial delay are a matter of concern as noted by the CIC, more so when the matter to be decided is relatively simple. The advisory by the CIC to the Secretary / Head of the Department would hopefully expedite the matter. With privatization of basic amenities governing life and living like electricity supply, education, healthcare etc, some element of accountability has to be built in failing which the common man would suffer.
Citation: Rameshwar Dayal Gaud v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148403; Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
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

Appellant sought information of his deceased father’s Bank account. The PIO informed that the account of Late Shri Gulwant Singh was settled on 30.10.2019 in favour of the nominee and daughter-in-law of the deceased account holder. Therefore, the details thereof, were exempted under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act and there is no scope for further intervention in the matter.
Comments
If an applicant seeks information about the bank account of a deceased, information can only be provided if the applicant is a joint-account holder or the nominee in the account. Such information cannot be provided to a third party and only a successor can obtain the information.
Citation: Surjeet Singh v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/100960; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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

A written complaint was filed and the complainant sought to know about the investigation and outcome of the same. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j). On second appeal, the CIC observed that the initial reply given by the PIO and the written submission before it now are not in tune with transparency. The complete denial of the information invoking Section 8(1)(j) is inappropriate as per the RTI Act, since the Appellant being the complainant, has right to know the broad outcome of the action on her complaint. The CIC directed the Railways to provide a revised updated point-wise reply i.e. action taken on the complaint filed by the complainant.
Comments
It has been often seen that a complaint is filed and the complainant later files an RTI application to know the progress or the action taken on the complaint. Exemption sections like section 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(j) have often been resorted to by the PIO’s to deny information. In many cases the CIC has held that the broad outcome of the enquiry should be disclosed to the complainant.
Citation: Kavita Yadav v. Office of the Divisional Railway, Manager, RTI Cell, Jabalpur; File No: CIC/WECRL/A/2023/120568; 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 Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the merit list for each category for Office Assistant (Assistant) appointed under direct recruitment in 2011 and related information. Before the CIC, the Respondent submitted that the instant case is identical to an earlier decided case of the Appellant vide File No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2022/609371 dated 01.02.2023. After perusal of records, the CIC observed that concededly, the instant RTI Application is a sly repetition of an earlier RTI Application filed by the Appellant on 02.11.2021 which has been decided vide File No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2022/609371 dated 01.02.2023. In other words, points 2 & 5 of the RTI Application of 02.11.2021 corresponds to point no.3 of the instant RTI Application while point no.7 of the former RTI Application corresponds to point no. 4 of the instant RTI Application. Therefore, the CIC held that the instant matter is devoid of any such material on record that warrants determination of a fresh issue for consideration.
Comment
An applicant should realise that there is an expenditure on every RTI Application, which is paid from the Taxpayers money. Repeating RTI applications on the same issue not only leads to unnecessary wastage of time and resources, but also causes delay in disposal of appeals by the other RTI applicants.
Citation: Naresh Kumar v. Defense Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune; Second Appeal No. CIC/DIOAT/A/2023/621378; Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
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 attested photostat copy of certain letter was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. As the FAA upheld the reply given by the PIO, the applicant filed an appeal before the CIC. The PIO submitted that the letter sought for by the Applicant was the communication under which departmental action was sought against the Applicant and it contains the brief of the proposed disciplinary action, details of which were already revealed in the Chargesheet served to him. Upon a query from the CIC regarding the invocation of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the PIO was unable to tender any justification except for reiterating that the details contained in the averred letter were already revealed in the Chargesheet. Despite being afforded with adequate opportunity during the hearing to the PIO to justify the denial as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, no tenable explanation was forthcoming. The CIC noted that the information sought for by the Applicant relates to his own disciplinary case. The CIC rejected the denial of the information and directed the PIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide a reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for therein, free of cost. The CIC granted the limited liberty to the PIO to redact in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, the names and identifying particulars of third parties as well as the personal information, if any, related to third parties, both of which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Comment
The PIO must understand that he/she may be called upon to justify the invocation of the exemption for the denial of the information. To justify the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, PIO must be able explain what impediment will be caused to an investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offender by the disclosure of the averred information.
Citation:Shankar Ram Verma v. Department Of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2023/100589; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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

I hope that he uses foreign experience effectively. Banks losing deposits is a concern. He has to keep eyes on NPA, Jandhan a/c holders, privatisation of Insurance Cos./Banks, banks net profit or NIM, unproductive ATMs, Public Grievances, Banks merger, NBFCs UCBs and others, RR Banks sponsored by Banks, coordinate with Cooperative Ministry on Banks, digitalization, misselling of insurance products, governance in Banks and keeping them world class, Banks following national and global norms, health insurance expansion and checking exploitation, empower top leaderships in financial sectors, more NRI PIO investors.
Srinivasan Shankar
RTI
Sir, You may continue to write good things about RTI but the painful emerging fact is that the political class and bureaucracy have taken all possible steps to remove the sting out of the Act. Without any effective deterrence, accountability cannot be enforced especially in an opaque system like ours. It is not to say that there is no impact of the RTI Act, but the positive impact is minimal. Pro-active disclosure is very little and the departments continue to work at a slow pace.
Kushagra Kumar

The appellant sought to know the number of times Dr C Balasubramanian MS (ENT), Professor cum HOD, Dept of ENT, Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital was invited for conducting MS / DNB in Otorhinolaryngology postgraduate exams in all of the medical colleges affiliated under Pondicherry University during the academic year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The appellant alleged that there is an unwarranted and unethical practice of taking money for passing the candidates in PG clinical exams by the examiner is a clear violation of P.G. Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(e), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that irrespective of the fact that the Appellant has only sought for number of times the examiner was invited, the same cannot be provided in view of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, particularly in the backdrop of the Appellant’s allegation claiming several malpractices on the part of the averred third party in the preface to the RTI query. The CIC held that even though it is not disputed that the Appellant has only sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner for conducting MS / DNB in Otorhinolaryngology postgraduate exams, but being a service matter of that third party, exempt u/s 8(1)(j). The CIC further held that Section 8(1)(g) is also appropriate in view of allegations levelled by the Appellant.
Comment
The denial of information under section 8(1)(j) is strange as the number of times a person has joined as examiner on official duty can hardly be called as personal information of either the individual or the university. The applicability of 8(1)(g) is stranger as no harm to the physical safety can be alleged on the wildest stretch of imagination.
Citation: Er Sureshkumar Jeyakumar v. Pondicherry University, CIC/PONDU/A/2023/101007; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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

Brief Information about locker agreement and other related information was sought from PNB in Hindi. The applicant submitted that the reply furnished by the PIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. When enquired by the CIC as to whether a copy of agreement of locker is available in Hindi language or not, the PIO submitted that the copy of agreement is in English only, however, whenever required, they explain the agreement to the party concerned in Hindi also. The CIC observed that the appellant has sought a copy of the locker agreement in Hindi language but the same could not be provided by the respondent as the agreement is available in English language. The CIC noted that the respondent Bank is in a customer facing department and for the convenience of the general public, a copy of the agreement should be available in English as well as in Hindi language. Therefore, the Commission directed to furnish a translated copy of the agreement to the appellant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
Comments
Ordinarily the information is provided in the form in which it exists which implies that no changes or translation is needed. However, in specific cases, the public authority may be required to translate the documents and provide it to the citizens.
Citation: Awadh Bihari Gupta v. Punjab National Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/115245; Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
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 stated that he has not received any information on the RTI Application dated 13.08.2022 filed with the UCO Bank. Before the CIC, the PIO referred to an earlier CIC Order dated 21.12.2023 regarding the same appellant, where it was directed that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the instant application by the appellant may be listed together for hearing and a common order to be passed in all the matters. The PIO referred to the notice dated 04.04.2024 with regards to the instant RTI application for appearing before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner. The PIO submitted that the subject complainant/Appellant is same to the Complainant in the earlier notice. Therefore, the queries which were sought earlier and replies given may be treated as replies to the instant notice. The CIC was baffled at the sheer complacency of the Respondent in coming across as being absolutely alien to the concept of the RTI Act or its mandate as it was being naively suggested that their sole reply of 21.12.2023 suffices all the past, present and future RTI Applications of the Appellant and that the Commission ought not to call upon the Respondent office for hearing any matters in the aftermath of the order dated 21.12.2023. The CIC noted that even the FAA has not bothered to decide the instant First Appeal till date, which is also a grave violation of the statutory duty cast upon the FAA by virtue of the RTI Act. The CIC was aghast at the conduct and the submissions of the PIO and directed the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application. The CIC instructed that the inaction on the instant First Appeal shall also be duly explained by the FAA.In the event that the FAA fails to comply with the said direction, the CIC will be constrained to deem the FAA as the CPIO in the instant matter for proceeding with action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Comments
Though there is express provision for action against the PIO for not following the provisions of the RTI Act, there is little that can be done against the FAA. This is one case where the CIC has resorted to a deeming provision and threatened to use it against the FAA.
Citation: Alom Hussain v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/100779; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
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

Appellant sought certain information about inquiry report about Ganeswar Behera which was denied under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming that the required information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. During the hearing before CIC, the Appellant submitted that she had sought information related to her husband but no information was provided to her. Ganeswar Behera was present in the hearing along with the Appellant and upon being queried by the CIC, he gave his ‘no objection’ to the Public Authority if the information related to him is parted with the Appellant. The CIC found no infirmity in the initial reply of the PIO, as the Appellant in her RTI application and first appeal has nowhere mentioned that the information sought is related to her husband and Ganeswar Behera has no objection in parting his information to her. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI application and give information to the Appellant as per the documents available on record.
Comments
An individual should ideally file an application himself/ herself rather than asking the spouse to file an application. In case the latter is resorted to, a no objection certificate should be attached along with the initial RTI application.
Citation: Rosalini Behera v. East Coast Railway, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/107864; Date of Decision : 12-04-2024
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 raised queries like whether a Disciplinary Authority direct the charged official to submit a written statement of defence in a case of unauthorized absence from duties if there is no statement of misconduct or misbehavior under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. He demanded to provide the relevant guidelines. Before the CIC, he submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him. The CIC noted that more than 70 cases of the same Appellant against same/related Public Authority under Ministry of Railways have already been heard and disposed of by different benches while eleven second appeals of the Appellant were listed for hearing on the same day. The CIC observed that Appellant apparently wants to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The CIC stated that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Pointing out the powers under the RTI Act, the CIC cautioned the Appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
Comments
There have been many cases of repetitive RTI applications and such litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime. An applicant should be judicious in the use of RTI Act and it should be used to obtain information rather than as a tool to harass the Public Authority.
Citation: Shankar Poddar v. M/o Railways, Railway Board, CIC/MORLY/A/2023/106645; Date of Decision : 28-03-2024
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