Penalty on PIO for a cyclostyled reply

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