RTI Corner

The appellant sought a certified copy of the initial map related to a particular building which was donated to Jhansi Cantonment Board for construction purposes. The appellant also sought a certified copy of the General Land Register, total property tax assessed and other related information. As no response was received within the prescribed time period, the appellant filed the first appeal and later the second appeal before the CIC. According to the arguments presented by the respondent, the current PIO, who was responsible for disposing of the submitted RTI application has retired, and no show cause notice proceedings can be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act against a retired PIO. The CIC directed the current PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to ensure timely and proper disposal of pending RTI applications in accordance with the law, failing which appropriate action shall be taken against them in the future under the provisions of the Act. Further, the CIC directed the PIO, Cantonment Board, Jhansi, to examine the information sought by the appellant through the submitted RTI application and, based on the available records, provide the requested information/response to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Comments
A coordinate bench of the CIC in Appeal Nos. CIC/PB/2008/00999 and CIC/SM/A/2009/000286 dated 13-05-2010 held that since the concerned PIO has retired from the service, we find it not possible to impose any penalty on him at this point of time. The precedent was followed in many subsequent orders like Shri Chander Prakash v. AAI, CIC/SS/C/2013/000053 dated 18.12.2013. The RTI Act does not specifically debar action against the PIO on superannuation.
Citation: Sudhir Choudhary v.Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Jhansi Cantonment Board, File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/114007; Date of order: 03.11.2025
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 complainant had sought information regarding the exact number of Nikkah (Marriage) conducted by the Janab. M. Mohamed Ali Maraicar, Khazi, Karaikal District since his appointment in the post till 30.9.2023. The application was forwarded under Rule 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 since certain information sought in the application pertain to the other office with a request to provide the required information directly to the applicant. The CIC noted that the PIO took appropriate steps under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to forward the request to the authority holding the information (District Government Khazi), and the Complainant was informed about the same. Subsequently, a composite reply was provided on 19.12.2023. The CIC held that there is no evidence of wilful denial or refusal by the Respondent authority and disposed of the complaint.
Comments
The RTI Act mandates that where a public authority does not hold the information but has made bona fide efforts to forward the request to the relevant authority, the PIO is not held liable under the Act as no mala fide iss established on part of the Respondent.
Citation: J Mohammed Bilal v. Puducherry State Waqf Board, CIC/UTPON/C/2024/102435; Date of Decision 01.05.2025
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 sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to this son admitted in IIM Rohtak (IPL) in 2023. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished that the institute had no record of documents requested by the appellant. The Commission noted that documents sought in the RTI application are not available with the respondent and dismissed the appeal.
Comments
The RTI Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant.
Citation: Brijesh Kumar Sharma v. Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMRO/A/2024/644911; Date of Decision: 14.10.2025
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 asked the IIM Bangalore to provide the exact and specific reasons regarding why he was not called for the interview for PhD programme. The PIO informed that the Pre-Pi score of the appellant was lower than the cut-off required for the CFI process under the NC-OBC category. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the parameters of shortlisting the candidates had not been provided by the PIO. Moreover, the reasons for not calling him for the interview had also not provided till date. The CIC held that the appellant has sought reasons, which does not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The Hon’ble Bombay High court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008), held that the definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.
Citation: Anshul Bisen v. Indian Institute of Management–Bangalore, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMBL/A/2024/631898; Date of Decision: 10.10.2025
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 the policy and instructions regarding the allotment of Government accommodation (Residences, Covered Car Parks, Camp Offices) to the incumbent or Ex. Ministers of Cabinet/State/ Deputy or equivalent status, incumbent or Ex. Member of Parliament between May 1, 2001 and October 30, 2023 was sought by the appellant. Further information about who had overstayed in the Government accommodation, the penal rent collected and copy of notices served etc. was also sought. The PIO replied that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is voluminous as the Appellant is seeking information for 22 years which requires collection and collation of data and providing the same would divert the time and resources of the public authority as per the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The CIC declined to intervene in the matter observing that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure. The CIC pointed out that public interest is different from public curiosity.
Comments
There has been a long standing discussion about defining the boundaries of Public Interest - Information which is of interest to the public and something which is in the public interest. It raises a pertinent question whether any amount which has been condoned for overstaying in government accommodation should be disclosed.
Citation: Saurabh Kumar v. Directorate of Estates, File No: CIC/DOEST/A/2024/124871; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
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 requested pertaining to the selection of a student in the PGP 24-26 program. He requested to confirm whether Saransh Upadhyaya has been selected on a seat earmarked for EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota at IIM Ahmedabad. Alternatively, he requested to confirm the quota on which the selection has been done. The PIO replied that the information contains personal information of student. Hence, information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. The CIC noted that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the sought information is exempted under Section 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. The appellant has to establish larger public interest to seek any personal information relating to a third party.
Citation: Satish Chhiber v. Indian Institute of Management: Ahmedabad, Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMAH/A/2024/629101; Date of Decision: 10.10.202
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

Vide RTI application dated 29.04.2024, the appellant sought information about the Provident Fund Statement, PF trust being declared unexempted, his PF amount transferred to EPFO department etc. but did not receive any response. During hearing, upon the CIC’s query on not replying to the appellant within stipulated time limit, the respondent submitted that the earlier CPIO retired, and he has recently joined the respondent’s office and was not aware of the online RTI application. To this, the CIC questioned how an online RTI application can go unnoticed. In terms of the information to be furnished, the CIC observed that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant vide written submission dated 07.10.2025. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Further, the CIC took a serious view of the fact that the respondent did not reply to the appellant within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act and issued a show cause notice to the CPIO as to why action should not be initiated against him/her for not replying to the appellant’s RTI request within prescribed time limit.
Comments
One of the basic tenets of the RTI Act is that an applicant should receive a reply within the prescribed time limit. With the digital tracking of the RTI Application, it is incumbent upon the PIO to reply as per the prescribed time period or face consequences.
Citation: Biju Soman v. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Second Appeal No. CIC/HINAL/A/2024/134731; Date of Decision:15.10.2025
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 during telephonic hearing before CIC that he had sought the statements dated 13.09.2023 collected by the Delhi Police, but the same had been denied to him by the Police authorities under the pretext that it had been submitted before the Court. But the statements were not available even in the Court records. The Respondent agreed to search the said statements in their records and make the same available for the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO, O/o ACP Kalyanpuri to grant inspection of the relevant records pertaining to the queries raised by the Appellant, specifically the statements recorded by the Delhi Police on 13.09.2023, on a mutually convenient date and time. The CIC directed that copies of documents identified by the Appellant shall be provided to him upon payment of fees as stipulated under the Act. The Respondent were given the liberty to deny records containing any information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also apply provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while disclosing the records as sought by the Appellant.
Comments
While replying to an application, the veracity of facts must be verified by the PIO. A vigilant PIO would have exercised due caution before informing the RTI applicant that the documents have been submitted to the Court which was subsequently found to be factually incorrect, saving an embarassment.
Citation: Shri Vikrant v. Delhi Police, Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/643049; Date of Decision: 21.08.2025
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 asked for a certified copy of the RNI Registration Certificate of "Dominican Ashram" vide Registration No. 46971/88. Before the CIC, the Appellant stated that the information has not been provided to him and it was wrongly denied by the then PIO ignoring the fact that it is a public document. The Respondent submitted that the registration certificate of registered newspapers are in public domain which can be easily accessed from their official website https://prgi.nic.in/registration-title-data-details/. During the hearing before the CIC, the Respondent opened the link on the computer system of the Bench and showed the e-certificate and also handed over a hard copy of e-certificate to the Appellant which was taken on record. The CIC held that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent to the Appellant during hearing which is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be thorough with the content accessible on the website of the organization failing which errors may be committed or, time may be spent on making available an information which has already been made public.
Citation: Jose Abraham v. Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India, File No: CIC/RNIND/A/2024/609589; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
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 filed sought the list of petrol pump functioning in the urban area of district Bareilly. Further, he asked about the land requirements with layout of one Pump, the details of pumps which not fulfilled the land requirements and related information. The PIO denied the information holding that the appellant has not disclosed the public interest warranting disclosure of such an information. The CIC observed that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and directed the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point-wise reply as available in their records. The CIC strongly recommended the IOCL to explore the viability of maintaining such information on their official website pertaining to list of petrol pumps functioning all over India and related issues regarding land requirement/measurement for allotment of petrol pump.
Comments
Making the information available in the public domain proactively is in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo-motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.
Citation: Shri Anand Singh Chauhan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), CIC/IOCLD/A/2023/626935; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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 sought the enquiry findings in relation to the complaints filed by her and her husband. The Respondent stated that it has been informed to the Appellant that since a court case filed by her is pending before the Court of Law, therefore, inquiry in her complaint was put on hold awaiting the final verdict of the law. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied on the ground that matter is sub-judice before Court of Law. She contended that no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court for non-disclosure of any information and the subject matter before Court of law relates to pay fixation while she through instant RTI application sought action taken report on her complaint of harassment by the concerned teacher. The CIC held that the initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know. The CIC observed that the only pertinent exemption from disclosure appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act. The PIO was directed to provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her and also advised to exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications.
Comments
The matter being sub-judice is not a valid ground for denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Seema Gupta v. Office of the Deputy Director of Education, File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/609275; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
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

Three registered post envelopes were returned to the sender (District Judge) without being delivered. With reference to three registered postal envelopes which were returned without affixing any remark on the envelopes, the appellant requested to provide the reasons for return. The Department of Post submitted that the three registered articles, referred to in the RTI application, were returned with remarks “receiver not at address”. Further, it was submitted that the reply sent in response to the RTI application was inadvertently sent at the incorrect address, hence, could not be timely delivered. However, on receipt of the return mail, they rectified the address and communicated the information to the appellant on 09.02.2024. The CIC observed that the respondent initially replied on 14.12.2023 but the same was not delivered timely to the appellant due to incorrect address. The CIC accepted the clarification provided by the PIO that the delay in response to the RTI application was inadvertent and had occurred on account of incorrect address being mentioned in the dispatch letter. Holding that due information has been furnished and the delay caused on the PIO’s part does not appear to be deliberate, the CIC disposed the appeal.
Comments
If the delay in reply by the PIO is unintentional and due to an inadvertent error, there is no penal liability as there is no malafide denial of information.
Citation: Sardar Ajit Singh v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/112391; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
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