Whispers Forum

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

It is the judicial bodies and judiciary which have done a great distinct service to the RTI Act by not following the provisions in letter and spirit. The decisions are made without public consultation and without recording the reasons in file. When the RTI Application is filed, there is nothing on the file to disclose. It is the classical way to work in an opaque manner. Is someone interested in breaking this lock jam? It would perpetuate the non-accountability in the system. As the guardians of the Constitution, the higher judiciary is the one who is supposed to take steps to enforce the section 4 of the RTI Act. Regrettably, 19 years later, the section 4 of the RTI Act is yet to be implemented.
Bhishambar Nath Singh