RTI Corner

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

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