RTI Corner

Information pertaining to pending First Appeals registered in July to September 2019 including total number and List of First appeals which were registered in the above said months and other related queries were asked. The complainant contended that there is a deemed refusal of information sought in all the above RTI Applications and the reply has been provided with a considerable delay. The CIC observed that the complainant has sought categorical information in all the above RTI Applications and the PIO cannot be the custodian of all the information, however the then CPIO did not take assistance from the concerned department/ division under Section 5(4)/ Section 5 (5) of the RTI Act which in this case is their superior authority. The complainant contended that the respondent had wilful and malafide intention as they did not want to expose the poor performance of their superior authority, hence a point-wise reply has not been provided. The CIC noted that the information sought is related to FAA i.e. his own higher administrative authority seeking to indicate pendency against their superior officer, therefore he did not want to disclose it in order to hide the conduct of their superior authority. The CIC observed that the first appeal in these RTI matters have been pending and FAA did not decide these appeals to direct or guide the CPIO to provide the information. In a way there is apparent synergy between the CPIO & FAA in not giving reply to all the above RTI Applications disclosing pendency of appeals for a very long period of time. The CIC held that the then CPIO has deliberately not taken any assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the O/o. the First Appellate Authority in reply to queries related to pendency of appeals at FAA level with malafide intention of not providing the relevant information to avoid disclosure of long pendency at the level of his Superior officer and waited to give reply after summary disposal of pending appeals. The CIC ruled that that this is the case where there is an intentional denial and obstruction of information and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) u/Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the then PIO, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs..
Comments
Many PIOs tend to hesitate while seeking information from their seniors in respect of information held at their end. The role of the PIO under the RTI Act requires them to act independently. The PIO must remember that he alone is responsible for the consequences of delay or denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665550, CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665552 &CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665553, Date of order: 01-11-2021
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 Complainant pleaded that as the reply was delayed, the photocopying charges are not applicable. The PIO submitted that on 29.02.2020, the complainant was given all the required information free of cost who submitted an undertaking that he is satisfied with the information. The Complainant submitted before the CIC that he was forced to sign the undertaking stating his satisfaction. The CIC held that there is no ground to accept that the undertaking was signed under pressure. However, the PIO was issued a warning for not providing the documents free of cost on time and claiming charges despite the delay in replying.
Comments
As per Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act, the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the prescribed time limits. A PIO must ensure timely disbursal of information
Citation: Raashed Ashraf Rather v. Military Engineer Services in File no.: CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114700/IAIRF, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021
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

Daughter of Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta and Sumati Rani Bhakta sought to know on what ground her mother got employment in the life time of her father. The applicant submitted that her father was mentally not well and therefore her mother was given employment and there is a dispute regarding landed property among the legal heirs. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the information. The information with regard to appointment of Smt. Sumati Rani Bhakta was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any larger public interest, the reply of the CPIO is accepted and no further action is called for.
Comments
It is not uncommon to see RTI applications being filed to settle scores in cases of personal animosity. However, irrespective of the purpose, personal information cannot be provided unless there is a larger public interest..
Citation: Shikha Paul v. Metal & Steel Factory in File no.: - CIC/DODFP/A/2020/113465, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021
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 applicant sought copies of marks awarded in different levels of examination to the appellant and other candidates, by each Member of the Recruitment Board constituted for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher at Air Force School, Sarsawa. The applicant submitted that all the schools of Air Force are built on the land allotted to the Air Force Complex which is government land and in addition, the building for these schools is also being constructed by the Air Force with the government funds received from the Defence budget allocated to the Indian Air Force. The PIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to Air Force School, Sarsawa. Air Force Schools are run under the aegis of “The Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society” and do not fall under the term “Public Authority”. It is a non-public fund venture and does not fall under the definition of public authority as per Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the AFS Sarsawa is not a public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO was asked whether they can obtain any information from the custodian to which he submitted that they work in ex-officio capacity and will not be able to access information. In view of the same the Commission is not able to provide any relief.
Comments
In the case of Union of India and another v. Chotelal and Others on 8.12.1998, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the characters of the Regimental Fund, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said fund cannot be held to be public fund by any stretch of imagination.
Citation: Priyanka Taneja v. Indian Air Force in File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2020/108465, Date of Decision: 01/11/2021
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

Information about upgradation of empanelment was sought including copy of the internal files, part files and any other note sheets or other relevant documents. The FAA denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the most pertinent questions which require adjudication in this case are: i) list of independent experts on the Committee and ii) comments of each expert committee member. The CIC further observed FAA’s order suffered from mis-application of the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence was set aside. Referring to the decisions of the Apex Court wherein disclosure of such details have been specifically denied invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the CIC noted that the pleadings fail to indicate as to how disclosure of the list of members of the Committee and their comments could serve larger public interest. The CIC declined to disclose the information..
Comments
In the cases of i) Kerala Public Service Commission v. SIC & Ors. and ii) Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, disclosure of information about examiners/ independent experts of the Committee or comments of the said members was denied.
Citation: Dr. Kumud Diwan v. Indian Council for Cultural Relations in Second Appeal No. CIC/ICCRL/A/2019/153496, Date of Decision : 02.11.2021
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

In respect of the Company Termination Notice and the reason for the inordinate delay in bringing his case to a close, the information sought by the complainant was rejected under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, holding that it pertains to aviation security related matters. The complainant stated that information was denied without any reasons or justification despite the fact that the same pertained to his own disciplinary proceedings and withdrawal of Airport Entry Permit (AEP). The respondent stated that a petition has been filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) is also a party. The CIC observed that no plausible explanation for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act was provided by the PIO and the same is without any clear justification which is against Section 7 (8) (i) of the Act. The CIC ruled that the plea of the Respondent regarding the ongoing matter before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi bears no relevance to the facts of the instant case since the RTI Act does not provide for any exemption u/s 8 as per which information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is subjudice. The CIC directed the PIO, BCAS to show cause and submit an explanation stating the reasons/ justifications for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act by 30.11.2021.
Comments
The information cannot be denied merely on the ground that the matter is pending before the Court of law. The matter being sub-judice is not a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd) v. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736, Date of Decision: 14.10.2021
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 has sought information regarding license issued for poppy cultivation to an individual and other related queries. The PIO informed the appellant that the information sought being 32 years old is not available. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal and the FAA upheld the PIO’s reply. The respondent submitted that the information sought being too old cannot be traceable. The CIC directed the respondent to make all possible efforts to search the relevant information and provide the same to the appellant. In an alternative, an appropriate affidavit enumerating the factum that the information sought is not in the custody of the public authority should be provided to the appellant.
Comments
It is seen that old records are not traceable with many public authorities and nobody is held responsible for the loss of documents. Many public authorities are not undertaking destruction of records on regular basis which they are required to undertake.
Citation: Mr. Lal Singh V. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Second Appeal No.CIC/DOREV/A/2020/108647, Date: 12.10.2021
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 related to the payment of pension to Members of Parliament after the completion of their term and other related queries. The appellant agreed that the relevant information has been provided by the respondent, however the reply provided is not officially signed, therefore, it is not authentic. The respondent had provided a reply through RTI online portal which is a system generated reply and same does not require authenticity. Although the public authority has no control over the format in which the information received by the appellant through RTI online portal, but the CIC held that if in case the relevant information as provided through RTI online portal is not dispatched yet, the same should be provided in hard copy as well. The CIC directed to provide the relevant information to the appellant in hard copy also as exits on record, duly attested and authenticated by the public authority.
Comments
Whether copies of documents available on the website should be provided and whether the same should be authenticated has been often raised. In this case, the CIC has directed in favour of providing the authenticated copies of records.
Citation: Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Bhilyabhai Patidar V. Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha Secretariat IN Second Appeal No.CIC/PAROI/A/2020/108452, Date: 12.10.202
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 online RTI application seeking the information about the names of sponsored students and their sponsoring organisations who completed their M.Tech from Department of Computer Science and Engineering of IIT Kharagpur during 1983 - 2019. Part of the information was provided while it was informed that the remaining data is not available. The CIC observed that it is personal information of third parties and ignoring this aspect the CPIO has erred in giving the details of said students through his first reply without seeking consent of such students under Section 11 of RTI Act. The CPIO was advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as per the RTI Act while divulging the third party’s personal information to the applicants.
Comments
An overenthusiastic (ignorant?) PIO may not follow the procedure and disclose personal information of third party. Such an act may lead to loss or detriment to the third party for which a compensation may be claimed. It calls for regular training of the PIO and FAA as such mistakes are being done by a large number of officers.
Citation: Har Sukhdeep Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur in File No: CIC/IITKH/A/2020/106698; Date of Decision: 21/09/2021
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

Certified copies of all noting, all inquiry reports, and all first and second stage advice in respect of appellant’s various complaints registered by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under PIDPI Resolution were sought. The PIO replied that the information sought cannot be provided as per PIDPI Resolution dated 21.04.2004. The Appellant submitted that he is being denied information under the garb of PIDPI resolution even though he had categorically mentioned that he has no objection to the disclosure of his identity. Further, all of the complaints referred to by him are related to corruption and disclosure of information is invariably in the larger public interest. The appellant submitted that in similar cases, the Hon’ble CIC have granted relief vide orders no. CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/173997 Date of Decision 11.01.2021 & CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/174234 Date of Decision 11.01.2021. The PIO submitted that it is the constant endeavour of CVC to protect the interests of the whistle-blowers whether it is a PIDPI or non PIDPI complaint. He informed that CVC has challenged the decision of CIC wherein disclosure has been ordered under the RTI Act in similar cases before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and are awaiting admission by the Court. The CIC noted that at present Writ Petitions No.5596/2021; 5600/2021 & 5105/2021 are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The appeal was adjourned sine die.
Comments
Disclosure of action taken on complaints has been increasingly sought by different quarters. It is strange that the Hon’ble CIC has adjourned the matter only because a WP is pending before the High Court even when no specific stay has been granted.
Citation: Krishan Kumar v. Central Vigilance Commission in File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2019/143947, Date of Interim Decision: 13/08/2021
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

Whether a particular Dy. Superintending Engineer of ASI was granted bail against the conviction by CBI Court and related information was denied by CPIO citing Section 24 of the RTI Act. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that the information sought for cannot be provided to the Appellant as it pertains to a third party. The CIC took grave exception to the gross non-application of mind of the PIO in the matter as the information sought for in the RTI Application clearly pertained to allegations of corruption yet the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act was invoked in the PIO’s reply. The CIC held that nonetheless, the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to a third party and disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Comments
It has been debated whether a judicial order suspending a sentence can be termed personal. Further, in this case, the CIC has failed to take a note of the larger public interest.
Citation: L R Sudheendra Rao v. Central Bureau Investigation in File No: CIC/CBRUI/A/2020/115156, Date of Decision: 16/08/2021
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

Brother of the deceased third party sought certain information relating to the death of his sister. The PIO submitted that the appellant was requested to deposit photocopying charges of Rs 16/- which he failed to deposit. The First appeal was disposed of reiterating the same reply. The appellant claimed that he had not received any replies to his RTI Application. The CIC held that in case the PIO provides the proof of delivery of the demand of further fee, the appellant shall deposit Rs 16/- photocopying charges to obtain the copies; Failing which, the PIO should provide the information free of cost..
Comments
If a reply is not received by the RTI applicant within the prescribed time period, he is entitled to receive the information free of cost and the PIO may be liable to penalty. In this case, the CIC ought to have verified this fact during the hearing rather than giving an open ended order.
Citation: Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam v. HQ Western Air Command, CJA Branch Indian Air force in File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/131483, Date of Decision: 08/07/2021
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