RTI Corner

The appellant sought copies of recruitment Rules of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, copies of sanction posts, vacant posts and promotion policies of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, advertisement published for recruitment/tenders etc. The appellant acknowledged that he had received 1000 pages of documents but claimed that they contained either repeat pages or blank papers without providing the information sought by him. It was articulated that the information sought by him was of general nature which would have been placed in the Public Domain in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 relating to suo-motu disclosure by the Public Authority. The CIC advised the Respondent to suo-motu disclose such recruitment rules/policy in public domain in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act to ensure transparency, credibility, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority.
Comments
A voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and filing of RTI Application by the members of public who wish to seek information should be an exception. The Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications so that the general public need not resort to the filing of RTI Application.
Citation: Mr. S. Murli Manoharam v. National Automotive Testing & R&D Infrastructure Project, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises in Appeal No.:-CIC/NATRI/A/2017/117839-BJ, Date of Decision: 30.11.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought for the details of LTC availed by a public servant since her joining in the Ministry, the names of family members given in the LTC claim etc. The appellant claimed that the expenditure was incurred through Government exchequer and this information could be provided to him. The CIC ruled that the number of LTCs availed by Government officials and the number of family members is disclosable under the RTI Act.
Comments
Being a government servant does not mean a surrender of privacy. The information about the family members remains personal information that is not liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Ms. Prathiba Sharma v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways in Case No. CIC/MORTH/A/2017/168269/MP; Date of Decision: 01st December, 2017.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought information related to a college namely ‘Vaageshwari College’ from the AICTE, but, the spellings of the name of the college mentioned in the AICTE records was ‘Vaageswari College’. The PIO replied that no such college was approved by the AICTE. The CIC observed that the only difference in the spelling of college name was alphabet ‘h’, the PIO could have mentioned in the reply about the same. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a point wise reply to the appellant, mentioning that the name of the college approved by the AICTE within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Observing that the reply to the RTI application was not provided within the stipulated time period of 30 days and the FAA had not adjudicated on the first appeal, the CIC cautioned the respondent authority to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI matters.
Comments
The reply given indicates a tendency of some PIOs to give a technically correct answer which may not be the best way of dealing with the RTI Application. The provisions of the RTI Act should be followed not only in letter but also in spirit.
Citation: Shri More Ganesh, Rangareddy v. AICTE in Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/190104+189930/MP, Date of Decision: November 30, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought for the list of beneficiaries and the office to which they served at the time of allotment of CGEWHO dwelling houses of different types claiming irregularity in the transfer of his title deed. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that as far as the welfare schemes are concerned, the Government has a duty to maintain total transparency in the interest of better implementation. The CIC further held that a Title deed is a registered document indicating the transfer of property, which is a public activity by public authority. This cannot be termed as private information of a third party. Observing that the denying information about public welfare schemes of the government on the ground of privacy of some other person is sheer abuse of right to privacy by the Government and deliberate violation of RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause to the PIO and deemed PIO why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information. The public authority was directed to explain why it should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant.
Comments
Registration means giving a notice to public in general, so that people know that such property has been already transferred, which implies that it could not be further transferred. As per the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, registration of property is a compulsory statutory condition which essentially provides for maintenance of records of transaction and public access to it. Anybody can seek to find encumbrances on any registered immovable property as per the provision of these laws.
Citation: Dr. K. Venkata Rao v. Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in CIC/KY/A/2014/901399, Decided On: 17.11.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought detailed list of sundry creditors to each Private hospital (such as Medanta, Artemis, Fortis, Max, Paras etc) and the Government Owned Hospitals within the NCR region. The PIO informed that there are 390 CGHS empanelled institutions & Hospitals in Delhi. Earlier, due to heavy workload coupled with budgetary constraints, there used to be delay of around one year in settlement of claims of CGHS & empanelled hospitals which has dropped to around 3-4 months. The Commission directed the respondent to make proactive disclosure regarding the institutional creditors of CGHS & amounts due towards each of them.
Comments
A large number of government servants have complained of delay in reimbursement of the expenses incurred on their treatment. Many private hospitals had refused to be a part of the panel of hospitals approved by the Ministry of Health & family welfare where the government employees could take treatment. Hopefully, the public display of the list of creditors would expedite the payment of pending dues.
Citation: Aseem Takyar v. CGHS in F. No. CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/135673 F. No.CIC/CGHSD/A/2017/178863, Date of Decision : 31.10.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought information with regard to Chief Minister Relief Fund such as the complete list of funds, contribution received on account of NCT of Delhi, Chief Minister Relief Fund between the financial year 2013-16 and the list of beneficiaries to whom money was paid. The PIO argued against the disclosure of identity of the beneficiaries as the same may prejudice the privacy of the individual concerned and depict him/her in a position which is looked down upon by society. The CIC ruled that the names of beneficiaries as well the amount disbursed should be intimated to the appellant and found no impediment in placing the aforesaid data in public domain as well. The CIC observed that the names of beneficiaries and financial aid disbursed cannot be denied to the legislature and hence, the same doesn’t attract Section 8(1)(j).
Comments
The recipients of state aid cannot claim privacy as regards the benefits received by them and to ensure transparency in exercise of discretion by the authority, such data should be proactively disclosed by the public authority.
Citation: Mr. Aseem Takyar v. Chief Minister’s Secretariat GNCTD in F. No.CIC/LTGSE/A/2017/135671 and F. No.CIC/FDEPT/A/2016/304308, Date of Decision: 31.10.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought the name and designation of the competent authority for whose approval draft guidelines for the wood based industry were submitted; copy of modified draft guidelines submitted to the competent authority etc.. Before the CIC, the respondent submitted that at the time of the receipt of the appellant’s RTI application, the draft guidelines were under consideration and had been sent to the Minister for approval and therefore, no reply could have been sent to the appellant. However, approved guidelines were received in the section on 23.9.2016 and reply was given to the appellant’s RTI application. The CIC observed that the appellant’s RTI application was dated 20.7.2016 and response was given to the appellant by the CPIO on 26.9.2016, i.e. only after the appellant had approached the Commission in second appeal on 19.9.2016. The CIC advised the PIO for the future to give an interim response to the applicant in case the information is not readily available or awaited from any authority concerned, at the time of the receipt of the RTI application.
Comments
In many cases the information is not available with the PIO or may require some time for obtaining from a third party. In such cases, it is always advisable to keep the applicant informed about the steps being taken to provide the information.
Citation: Shri Udhaya Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change in Appeal No. CIC/MOENF/A/2017/175812/MP, Date of Decision: September 29, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Information about non-crediting of PF Employers share in account slips of 2013-14 etc. in applicant’s account was sought. The CIC held that the RTI request is concerned with ‘life and liberty’ and should have responded by EPFO within 48 hours. The CIC observed that if the phone/mobile or whatsapp, or email id is available, the EPFO shall use them to contact the applicant and to communicate the response. The CIC held that the EPFO is required to incorporate a system according to which the moment RTI application on pension issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify if it is a pension related grievance and then should start acting immediately. A show was issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub-Regional Office, Ganjam to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the information within prescribed timelines. The officer submitted an explanation and informed that a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- will be credited into the account of the appellant within a week. The CIC found the explanation satisfactory and dropped the Penalty proceedings.
Comments
The view of the CIC that a grievance related to pension (delay in response, delay in fixation and delay in payment) should be treated as ‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the public authorities shall do all the needful to address the issue within 48 hours extends the scope of life and liberty. The CIC has suggested the quick mode of communication while holding that if the phone/mobile / whatsapp, or email id is available, the respondent shall use them to contact the applicant and to communicate the response..
Citation: Manoranjan Patra v. EPFO, Ganjam, Odisha in CIC/BS/A/2016/000523 Decided on: 15.09.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Appellant stated that he wanted to know the reasons behind the blast that occurred in INS Sindurakshak (S 63) Submarine as he inferred from media reports that the cause for the blast was attributed to some human error. The PIO submitted that the information was denied under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon Commission’s instance, the PIO elaborated that the Board of Inquiry is a vast elaboration of the events which runs into almost 16 Volumes and entails description of the specifications of the Submarine; details of its deployment, where it was headed, why it was deployed and will even have sensitive details like missile fitting specifications. Disclosure of these details will be prejudicial to national security as similar class of submarines exist in present day which are used for deployment and if specifications are revealed, it will not be conducive to the strategic interest of the State. In the interim decision on 30.08.2017, the CIC directed the PIO to appear in person before the bench alongwith relevant files for the in-camera hearing. The PIO produced 16 volumes of relevant Board of Inquiry (BOI) report before the CIC. After perusing the relevant extract pertaining to findings of the Inquiry leading to mishap in INS Sindhurakshak , the CIC directed the PIO to provide to the Appellant, the extract of para 85(a) of page 46 of Volume XIII of 4 BOI, after suitably blacking out technical details.
Comments
Section 18 of the RTI Act grants the power to the CIC to requisition any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. In case of documents which are of confidential nature, the Commission has asked for the files to inspect such documents in terms of the suitability of disclosure.
Citation: Rahul Sehrawat v. Integrated HQ MoD(Navy) in File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2017/110171/SD, Date of Final Decision:06/10/2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought certified copies of TA claims, Professional Development Allowance (PDA) etc. filed by certain officials. The respondents stated that on points 1 to 4, 51 pages and on points 5 to 6, 88 pages of information had been provided to the appellant free of cost. The Commission observed that the PIO had provided voluminous information free of cost to the appellant including copies of TA/DA bills pertaining to third party. The Commission cautioned the PIO to be careful in future and not to divulge information to RTI applicants without invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
There is a protection provided in the RTI Act to the PIO for the action done in good faith. Whenever a PIO intends to disclose any information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO is expected to give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the information. The third party should be invited to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of the third party should be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.
Citation: Shri Sarbjit Singh v. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology (SLIET) in Case No. CIC/SLIET/A/2017/186226/MP, Date of Decision: 29th September, 2017.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The complainant claimed that 09 of his RTI applications were replied by way of a single letter by the PIO and none of his RTI applications were replied satisfactorily. The Respondent referred to the heavy load of work due to additional charge & that the Complainant had opportunity to file the first appeal but he did not file the first appeal and neither did he attend the hearing. The CIC noted that the exemption u/s 8(1)(j) was claimed regarding information relating to the total number of RTI Applications & Complaints filed under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the then PIO Mr. P.K Mondal, now posted as JCIT, TDS (in charge of Dhanbad and Ranchi) to show cause why penal action should not be taken against under the provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The above case points to the need of periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. This judgment series is a humble attempt in to achieve this goal.
Citation: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy v. Income Tax Department in Complaint No.:-CIC-CBDTD-C-2016-299256-BJ Date of Decision: 21.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant, Shri Mata Prasad, sought information regarding appointment of Garden Attendant in Archaeological Survey of India. The PIO informed the CIC that the appellant is a terminated employee from the Horticulture Branch, Archaeological Survey of India and he is prejudice with the ASI officers. The information had already been provided by the PIO earlier but the appellant chose to file an appeal dated 04.05.2017 before the CIC. The CIC ruled that all information were provided to the applicant by all PIOs and a final order was passed on 30.06.2017. The PIO added that the information collected through RTI by Shri Mata Prasad are being used to blackmail and harass the officers for his ill wishes. The CIC had warned to Shri Mata Prasad to refrain from misusing RTI Act and harassing the authorities for no rhyme or reason and also advised to stop filing such infructuous application in its final order CIC/ALSOI/A/2017143727 dated 10.08.2017. After perusing the details of the case, the CIC held that sufficient information had been provided to the appellant but for the reasons best known to him, he is still not satisfied. The CIC cautioned the appellant to desist from such kind of abuse to the RTI Act and stop harassing the public authority and the CIC.
Comments
There is no provision in the RTI Act for taking any action against the abusive and repetitive RTI applications which in turn would secure the interests of genuine RTI seekers. Even the CIC has been at the receiving end in some cases. Hopefully, better sense would prevail and the RTI abusers would end the misuse of the Act which brings a bad name to the sunshine Act.
Citation: Mata Prasad v. Archaeological Survey of India in CIC/ALSOI/A/2017/145334, Decided On: 15.09.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India