RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information regarding marks obtained by her in a computer based exam for Graduate Level Selection post including the copy of her answer sheet along with response sheet. The PIO submitted that the answer key and response sheet are uploaded on website immediately after conduct of examination and are accessible to the candidates. She further submitted that upon receipt of notice of hearing, she got in touch with the concerned Service Provider who was responsible for conducting the averred examination for procuring the relevant documents. She further more submitted that the said Service Provider is located in Chennai in a COVID-19 containment zone. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of Answer Key and Response sheet as sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, when CPIO resumes routine office after the Covid-19 lockdown is lifted.
Comments
The Covid – 19 epidemic affected many areas of life, including dissemination of information under the RTI Act. Many departments responded to the pandemic by using digital means. This order relates to May 2020 when many restrictions were in place.
Citation: Supriya Nipane v. Staff Selection Commission I File No: CIC/SSCOM/A/2018/627309, Date of Decision: 13/05/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought to know how many students were admitted under HRM quota for a particular academic year in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs). The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO as it was stated that the RTI is not a platform for questions and answers and if such is the case, then how will ordinary citizens know if admissions in KVS are done as per guidelines and no frauds have occurred. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the total number the students who were admitted under HRM quota for the academic year to the appellant. Further, the PIO was directed to provide the hyperlink of the website where the sought for information is available.
Comments
When some information which is already available on the website is sought by an appellant, the PIO should provide the specific web link of the same instead of saying that the information is available on the website.
Citation: S Malarvizhi v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in File no.: - CIC/KVSAN/A/2019/601602, Date of Decision: 08/10/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the name, State, community, marks obtained by the candidates who were selected for the admission during 2018 in Hindi Teachers Training Programme – ‘Parangat’. Initially, the PIO and the FAA denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, with the change in the PIO, the new PIO provided certain information containing the list of candidates, with category and the name of the State from which they belong. The PIO further submitted that the marks obtained cannot be given but the candidate can visit the office and inspect the records relating to marks. The CIC observed that personal information of third parties is not disclosable. The CIC also observed that different stands cannot be taken by different officers of the same organization.
Comments
The case shows the ignorance of the PIO and the lack of ability to deal with the applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Through this column, an attempt is made to provide fresh information about RTI cases on a weekly basis.
Citation: Dhirendra Kumar Panda v. Central Institute of Hindi in File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/103985, Date of Decision : 06/10/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information in the context of a complaint letter dated 27.12.2017 received against him which was denied under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act claiming that these documents bear mention of names of other employees and disclosure of the same may endanger their physical safety as Appellant has threatened some of these employees in the past. The CIC observed that the documents sought pertain to Appellant’s termination from service and he has every right to seek copy of these documents. Adverting to the apprehension of the PIO that disclosure of the same may pose harm to the physical safety of some employees, the Commission sparingly concedes with the applicability of Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to provide copy of specific and available documents sought after severing the names and identifying particulars of other employees/individuals whose reference figure therein. The severance of records will be carried out in consonance with the provision of Section 10 of RTI Act.
Comments
There have been cases where employees have been terminated or removed from service under 56 (J). This case laws provides some window for such employees to seek information.
Citation: Anupam Singh v. Ordnance Factory in File No: CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/154675, Date of Decision: 16/07/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought to know about the movement of his complaint to DDA and the action taken on it. The CIC observed that till date no information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 26.08.2018. Instead of transferring the RTI application to one specific PIO, the Nodal PIO had transferred the same to numerous PIOs within the public authority without application of mind. The CIC expressed its anguish observing that the RTI Act is clearly violated by the hands of the DDA and the PIOs are handling the RTI application with lackadaisical approach. A notice was issued to the then PIO, Commercial Land branch to show-cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act by not giving any reply to the appellant on his RTI application within the stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC advised the Vice Chairman, DDA to look into the style of work in the RTI cell and what methods are being adopted by the Nodal PIO regarding the disposal of RTI applications.
Comments
The PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to the RTI Applicant. However, the Nodal PIO should analyze the RTI application properly and then transfer the same to the specific PIO. One RTI application should not lead to multiple appeals just because of indiscriminate transfer of RTI Application.
Citation: Akshay Kumar Malhotra v. Delhi Development Authority in Complaint No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/101384, Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2019/101389, Complaint No. CIC/DDATY/C/2019/101502 and Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2019/100447, Date of decision: 19.10.2020.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant passed intermediate examination from NIOS in the year 2015 but the name of appellant’s mother was incorrect in the passing certificate. The appellant had submitted a demand draft of Rs.350 in favour of Secretary, NIOS on 24/08/2017 for correcting his mother’s name in the passing certificate. In this context, the appellant sought under RTI to provide passing certificate with correct name of appellant’s mother.
The appellant filed an appeal to CIC as a duplicate copy of his passing certificate was not issued to him. He was informed by the CPIO and the FAA that the correction in his mother’s name was done and which was also published on their website. It was clearly informed that there is a proper procedure to apply for a new passing certificate and for this, the appellant has to submit a proforma duly filled in with all the required details accompanied by the requisite fee. It was also stated that a passing certificate cannot be provided under the RTI Act. The CIC concurred with the submissions of the PIO as under the provisions of the RTI Act only the available and existing information can be provided and in this particular case, the appellant has prayed that his correct passing certificate may be issued. The issuance of a correct passing certificate in itself means the creation of new information which does not come under the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CIC ruled that in case the appellant wanted a correct copy of his passing certificate, he was bound to follow the procedure laid down by the concerned authority in this regard.
Comments
The rights of an applicant under the RTI Act is limited seeking and obtaining information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
Citation: Shri Amarendra Chaudhary v. UIDA in Second Appeal No. CIC/NITIA/A/2018/127581, Complaint No. CIC/NITIA/C/2018/648714, Date of Decision: 31.10.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

An application was filed under the RTI Act seeking copies of documents related to the biometric attendance of all the staff members of Office of Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog during a particular period. The information was denied claiming that the bio-metric attendance of staff is an arrangement between the employees and the employer which fails under personal information category, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals. The CIC observed that the applicant has failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less 'larger public interest'. The CIC ruled that the requested information cannot be supplied to the applicant under Rule 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of R.S. Gupta v. Govt of GNCTD and Ors., LPA 207/2020 dated 31.08.2020, the Delhi High Court held that the attendance record is part of service record which is a matter between the employee and the employer and ordinarily these aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information".
Citation: Shri Amarendra Chaudhary v. UIDA in Second Appeal No. CIC/NITIA/A/2018/127581, Complaint No. CIC/NITIA/C/2018/648714, Date of Decision: 31.10.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the proceedings and action taken report on his letter dated 12/08/2018 addressed to Sh. Prakash Keshav Javadekar, the then MHRD Minister. The representative of the CPIO submitted that it was only after the receipt of the CIC’s hearing notice that they came to know about the present RTI application. They thoroughly searched all their records but were not able to trace the RTI application, first appeal and even the representations mentioned by the appellant in his RTI application. The appellant submitted that it has been 02 years since he has filed his representation and the RTI Application and after such a long delay, merely stating that the RTI application and the representation are not traceable is making a mockery of the grievance redressal mechanism and also of the RTI Act.
The CIC held that the justification of the representative of the CPIO is not acceptable in toto as it was the fault of the RTI Cell who have failed to attach the relevant documents with the given FTS and it was left blank. The CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the respondent organisation as a whole for such poor handling of the RTI applications and negligence towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The appellant was directed to e-mail the copies of all the relevant documents as referred to in his RTI application to the representative of the CPIO. The CIC also instructed the Secretary, Ministry of Education to relook at the delivery mechanism in vogue in respect of the implementation of the RTI Act and take necessary steps to streamline the system of receiving RTI Applications and First Appeals.
Comments
All public authorities must ensure that the records relating to the RTI Applications and their replies are maintained properly.
Citation: Naresh Mokate v. Ministry of Education in File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/108482, Date of Decision : 26/10/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant filed an application seeking information about the ODI list such as number of officers whose cases have been exonerated and date of review meeting of the ODI status of officers etc. The information was denied from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the disclosure of any kind of information would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of ODI list.
Comments
The ‘list of Public Servants of Gazetted status of Doubtful Integrity’ includes the names of those officers only who, after enquiry or during the course of enquiry, have been found to be lacking in integrity, (i) Convicted in a court of law on a charge of lack of integrity or for an offence involving moral turpitude but on whom, in view of exceptional circumstances, a penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is imposed; (ii) Awarded departmentally a major penalty. a) on charges of lack of integrity b) on charges of gross dereliction of duty in protecting the interests of Government although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof; (iii) Against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude; and (iv) Who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical grounds, and in whose case on the basis of evidence during the trial there remained a reasonable suspicion against their integrity. In case of S R Senapati v. Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.) in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DGITV/A/2017/160016-BJ dated 16.10.2018, the CIC had directed to disclose the information applying severability.
Citation: A K Banerjee v. Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara Zone in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCEVD/A/2018/174752, / Date of order: 01.09.2020.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

During the hearing by video conference, the manner in which the PIO was making her presentations was not at all acceptable and it appeared that she was running the hearing. Despite repeated requests she failed to maintain the decorum of the CIC and continued to speak without listening to the questions raised by the CIC. The Commission was, therefore, constrained to disconnect the audio-conferencing and she was asked to file her written submissions to decide the case. The Commission noted that complete information was provided to the appellant and the appellant is also satisfied with the same. However, the appellant requested the Commission to instruct the concerned PIO to supply the information within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. The CIC cautioned the PIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications in future and to ensure that timely replies are provided to every RTI application handled by her. The CIC also observed that it is necessary to maintain decorum at all times during the hearing and even when the contention is justified, it must be in a language of utmost restraint, always keeping in view that the person making the comment is also fallible.
Comments
It is the duty of the PIO to behave cordially with the applicant and maintain good behaviour. The PIO should be humble and polite when addressing a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial body.
Citation: Dr S Garg v. University Grants Commission in File No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639673, Date of Decision: 09/09/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Among other submissions, the appellant informed the CIC that the FAA did not provide him an opportunity of being heard even though he had requested for the same in his first appeal memo. The CIC observed that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in line with the principles of natural justice. As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.
Comments
Although the RTI Act or the rules made thereunder do not prescribe the procedure to be followed by the FAA in dealing with first appeals, the FAA should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. In the case of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra [CA No. 9095/2012], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded.
Citation: Dr S Garg v. University Grants Commission in File No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639673, Date of Decision: 09/09/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The details of certain telephone number and the monthly amount paid for it was denied to the appellant. The appellant submitted that even if the information is related to the third parties, the PIO was bound to follow the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the contention of the appellant that the CPIO should have followed the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act before denying the information. The CIC observed that the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act is only to be followed in such cases where the PIO intends to disclose any information related to a third party, which was not the case in the present matter as the PIO had outrightly denied the information while stating that the information is related to third party.
Comments
Section 11(1) of the RTI Act says that where the PIO intends to disclose any third party information on a request made under this Act, the PIO shall, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the information and invite the third party to make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed.
Citation: C Christu Raj v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in File no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2019/639531, Date of Decision: 07/09/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com