RTI Corner

Appellant sought certain information about inquiry report about Ganeswar Behera which was denied under section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming that the required information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. During the hearing before CIC, the Appellant submitted that she had sought information related to her husband but no information was provided to her. Ganeswar Behera was present in the hearing along with the Appellant and upon being queried by the CIC, he gave his ‘no objection’ to the Public Authority if the information related to him is parted with the Appellant. The CIC found no infirmity in the initial reply of the PIO, as the Appellant in her RTI application and first appeal has nowhere mentioned that the information sought is related to her husband and Ganeswar Behera has no objection in parting his information to her. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI application and give information to the Appellant as per the documents available on record.
Comments
An individual should ideally file an application himself/ herself rather than asking the spouse to file an application. In case the latter is resorted to, a no objection certificate should be attached along with the initial RTI application.
Citation: Rosalini Behera v. East Coast Railway, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/107864; Date of Decision : 12-04-2024
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

The appellant raised queries like whether a Disciplinary Authority direct the charged official to submit a written statement of defence in a case of unauthorized absence from duties if there is no statement of misconduct or misbehavior under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. He demanded to provide the relevant guidelines. Before the CIC, he submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him. The CIC noted that more than 70 cases of the same Appellant against same/related Public Authority under Ministry of Railways have already been heard and disposed of by different benches while eleven second appeals of the Appellant were listed for hearing on the same day. The CIC observed that Appellant apparently wants to pressurize the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information denied to him, if any. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The CIC stated that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Pointing out the powers under the RTI Act, the CIC cautioned the Appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
Comments
There have been many cases of repetitive RTI applications and such litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime. An applicant should be judicious in the use of RTI Act and it should be used to obtain information rather than as a tool to harass the Public Authority.
Citation: Shankar Poddar v. M/o Railways, Railway Board, CIC/MORLY/A/2023/106645; Date of Decision : 28-03-2024
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

Copy of account opening form of a deceased person was denied by the Bank u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. When queried by the Commission regarding the submission of proof of being a Legal Heir of the deceased by the Appellant, the Respondent replied that no such proof has been submitted by the Appellant. The CIC advised the appellant to furnish the documentary proofs to the Respondent within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the Respondent was directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a correct revised reply to the appellant based on the aforesaid documentary proofs.
Comments
Many RTI applications are filed seeking information about a deceased person without any accompanying documents such as death certificate, legal heir proof, etc. If a person wishes to obtain any personal information about a deceased individual, then such documents should be enclosed alongwith the RTI application.
Citation: Neeta Singh v. Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, CIC/RUGBK/A/2022/136906; Date of Decision: 01.04.2024
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

Repair of quarter by CPWD
Appellant sought information about his online complaint regarding minor repair in Type 4 quarter, the note taken from allottee that he is satisfied with the work and others. The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that neither the necessary repairs works has been carried out by the Respondent Public Authority despite repeated complaints nor his First Appeal has been adjudicated till date. The Respondent submitted that the First Appeal was never received in their office because the address mentioned by the Appellant was not correct. However, at the behest of the CIC, he submitted that copy of First Appeal is now received by him with the hearing notice of the CIC, and he will place a copy of it before the FAA for final order. The CIC observed that First Appeal of the Appellant is not heard by the FAA till date and the Respondent pleads to allowing placing it before the FAA. The CIC directed that a fair and proper hearing be conducted by the FAA, by giving due opportunity to both the parties to present his case. Hence, the Appeal was remanded back to the FAA for adjudication of First Appeal upon providing fair hearing to both the parties. The First Appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
The First Appellate Authority is an important link in the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Every FAA should play the role assigned to ensure that the first appeal is disposed timely.
Citation: Amit Kumar v. CPWD, CIC/CPWNR/A/2023/109325; Date of Decision: 29-04-2024
RTI (2)
Link at which the case has been reported is given below from where the comments and citation may be checked-
https://www.whispersinthecorridors.com/detail/120427-DATE+WITH+RTI.html
The comments and citation mailed by me on 17.06.2024 can be checked from the mail and the relevant part which has not been reported is given below:-
Comments
High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. A similar view was taken by the High Court of Delhi in Ministry of External Affairs v. Asmita Sachin Waman, WP (C) 3735/ 2020 decided on 21.111.2022.
Citation: Shri Anurag Mittal v. Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, CIC/PASOF/A/2023/610640; Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
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 sought information about the bank account of his late father, FDs, nominee, amount etc. The FAA directed the PIO to provide statement of account of certain bank accounts. Not having received any information in compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the Second Appeal. The PIO stated that he was not the then PIO and could not update regarding the compliance of FAA’s order. The CIC observed that the respondent has partly provided the information. The FAA had directed the PIO to provide the account statements, but the PIO has not complied with the directions of the FAA, so far. The CIC directed to provide the copies of account statement.
Comments
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA is grossly incorrect on the part of the PIO. In this case, the PIO has been lucky to escape penalty for which there appears no excuse.
Citation: Vishnudev Prasad Singh v. Union Bank of India, CIC/UBIND/A/2023/100809; Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
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

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking certain information about payment by SEBI of the amount deposited by the Sahara India, progress of the case pending in the Supreme Court, Different schemes run by Sahara India etc. He filed a First Appeal alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. During the second appeal, the PIO informed that SEBI had submitted 22 status reports before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is primary holder of the information. However, the information regarding the process of refund and cut-off dates for the processing of the application have been provided to the appellant. The CIC held that PIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the Act.
Comments
The question as to who is the holder of information if a public authority has transferred some documents to another public authority has often been raised. In case of judiciary, the PIO often transfers the RTI application to the Registrar of the Court under section 6(3) of the RTI Act asking the registrar to directly provide the information to the applicant.
Citation: Mohan Sahu v. Security and Exchange Board of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2023/100957; 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

The appellant sought certified copy of passport renewal application of his wife Mrs. Shaily Mishra Mittal along with documents submitted for passport renewal. The PIO replied that the Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Appellant submitted before the CIC that he wants to know the marital status indicated by his wife in her passport renewal application as it is his apprehension that false information regarding her marital status has been indicated. He contended that the information sought was not exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as he was seeking details regarding his legally wedded wife who cannot be considered as a third party as their marriage is presently valid. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided as the Appellant is seeking personal information of a third party contained in her passport, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
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 stated that the document on the basis of which the Competition Commission arrived at a conclusion in Case 25 of 2020 was not provided. PIO stated that the Appellant was seeking information pertaining to a quasi-judicial decision for which inspection of records was offered as per the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 which was not availed off by him. PIO further stated that in case the appellant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the decision, he can exhaust the remedy available to him to appeal against the decision before the NCLAT. The CIC held that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been given by the PIO. The Appellant is at liberty to avail inspection of records as earlier offered to him on a mutually convenient date and time.
Comments
The use of RTI Act in quasi-judicial proceedings is not uncommon where the applicant tries to use another channel instead of the regular appellate remedy. Such attempts can provide a meaningful result only in cases where “information” is sought and there are no prescribed ways to obtain it.
Citation: Shri Prem Prakash v. Competition Commission of India, CIC/CPCOI/A/2023/105991; Date of Decision: 28.03.2024
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

Respondent was of the impression that the information sought in RTI application was already replied as similar information he had already asked in some other RTI application. Hence, he returned the RTI application stating that the information requested has already been supplied previously. Later, on perusal of files, the CPIO understood that the information requested in this petition is different from previous petition and expressed his regret for the mistake assuring the CIC that such situation will not recur in future. The PIO submitted that it was not done wantonly or in malafide intention. The CIC observed that the Respondent was unable to respond correctly to the queries raised by the Appellant, subsequently, the FAA had furnished appropriate information. Considering the detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory statement of facts filed by the Respondent before it, the CIC directed the PIO to send a copy of the written submission to the Appellant. The CIC closed the matter directing the Respondent to submit a compliance report in this regard before it..
Comments This case law offers relief in those cases where the PIO has inadvertently acted against the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Shri Vanniaperumal A v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CIC/NIEPM/A/2023/605558/MOCAF; Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
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 filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, SEBI. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of response, the Appellant filed a second appeal with the CIC. The Appellant submitted that he is only conversant with Tamil language and submitted that he has not received any information in the matter. SEBI submitted that it did not receive the RTI Application under reference and only the First Appeal addressed to SEBI was received. Since the RTI Application with reference to which the First Appeal was filed was never received by SEBI, the First Appeal was treated as a fresh RTI Application. For the want of proper RTI fees, the Appellant was informed that SEBI can accept RTI Application accompanied with RTI fees through prescribed mode and he was also advised that he can also file a fresh RTI Application. The CIC observed that the Appellant has filed the First Appeal before the FAA, SEBI without even filing any RTI Application with SEBI. The Registry has also erroneously arrayed SEBI as a Respondent in the matter, therefore, the role of SEBI is dispensed with. The appeal was rendered as not maintainable.
Comments
An applicant must file the RTI application and appeal with the same public authority. In case the application has been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, then the appeal is liable to be filed with the FAA of the public authority to whom the RTI application has been transferred.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
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

In his RTI application, the appellant sought information on 24 points wherein he pointed out which points pertained to which PIOs. The CIC observed that the appellant has indicated 4 PIOs to whom the queries pertained and despite knowing this fact, he has filed single RTI application before Education Department mentioning all the PIOs of different zones with the expectation that PIO of Department of Education would collect the information from all the PIOs concerned and provide it to the appellant. The respondent informed that the appellant is habitual RTI applicant and filed various RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals under the RTI Act just to harass the public authority. It may not be out of place to mention that total 27 second appeals/complaints have been disposed of by the appellant either by his name or his son’s name (Ullas Jain) before the Commission as on date and in most of the cases, he did not appear despite service of hearing notice. The Commission observed that the information as available with the respondent has already been provided to the appellant and no interference from the CIC is warranted. Further, the CIC advised the appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Comments
Many PIO’s have been transferring the RTI application to different zones either out of fear of penalty or under the erroneous belief that they are expected to compile the information and provide to the applicant. It causes unnecessary transfer of RTI application across multiple levels which is not mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: V K Jain v. Dy. Director of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2022/668667; Date of Decision: 22-03-2024
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 filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the CIC. During hearing, the attention of the CIC was invited towards the following clarification mentioned in the written submissions filed by SEBI, copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant. The clarification read, “…the Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence would not fall within the purview of the said Act…” After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, the CIC observed that the Appellant has not filed the RTI Application with any public authority as required under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The CIC has preferred to rely on the submissions of the respondent without referring to the definition of a public authority as per section 2(h) of the RTI Act. any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Govern­ment is covered under the definition of a public authority. As per section 2(a) of the RTI Act, "appropriate Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government. It is apparent that Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/134030; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
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