RTI Corner

The appellant sought a copy of the answer sheets in English Language in ICSE Examination which was not provided The Assistant Secretary informed that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act and as such, the information cannot be provided. The CIC observed that the Respondent office has established that it is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the RTI Act. The denial of information was upheld.
Comments
In many previous orders, [CIC in Anil Karla vs. CPIO bearing File No. CIC/MOHRD/C/2019/133799; Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WP No. 12549 (W) of 2016 Dinesh Sinha and others Vs. The ICSE and others; and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 617/2011 CISCE Vs. Ajay Jhuria] has ruled that ICSE is not amenable to RTI Act.
Citation: Yakshay Chheda v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination in CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/650057, Date: 11.03.2022
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 stated that through this appeal he aims to bring out the inconsistency in the procedure followed by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in issuing copyrights registration certificate and problems faced by start-up entrepreneurs. In the absence of hard copy of the copyrights certificate, it will be difficult for the start-ups to challenge infringement of their copyrights in a Court of Law based on mere digitised proofs and the litigation process will thus incur unwarranted costs. The CIC apprised the Appellant about the mandate of the RTI Act and the PIO clarified that digital registration certificate is issued as per their procedure and is indeed an admissible document in a Court of Law. The CIC observed that the Appellant has gone beyond the mandate of the RTI Act in seeking additional information at the First & Second Appeal stage based on the reply received from the CPIO in response to the instant RTI Application while bringing up issues concerning the merits of the administrative processes of the Respondent office. The CIC held that the issues thus raised by the Appellant are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the CIC under the RTI Act.
Comments
In the case of Hansi Rawat and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Delhi High Court held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.
Citation: Ramesh Balasubramaniam v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2020/688343, Date of Decision: 20/01/2022.
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

Action taken on a petition seeking release of Appellant’s husband (a resident of Uttar Pradesh) from the Central Jail, Patiala was sought from the Ministry of Law & Justice. The PIO informed that the subject matter does not concern their department but may be pursued with the appropriate State Government of Uttar Pradesh & Punjab. Before the CIC, the appellant’s advocate argued that the Respondent office should have pursued the case with the concerned public authority. The CIC observed that by virtue of his profession, the appellants’ advocate is expected to be acquainted with the jurisdictional powers of the State and Centre while filing petitions particularly in matters such as the instant one where there is ostensibly no overlap of Centre and State jurisdiction.
Comments
It is one of the rare cases where transfer of application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act has not been insisted upon by the CIC. Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act expects that a RTI application should be filed with the concerned public authority.
Citation: Arati Rajbhar v. Ministry of Law & Justice in File No: CIC/MOLAJ/A/2020/127106, Date of Decision: 27/01/2022.

The Appellant was aggrieved by the fact that his First Appeal was also replied by the PIO (Principal, KVS Mahoba) rather than by the concerned FAA (Deputy Commissioners) which he claimed to be in violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The PIO tendered his unconditional regret for the error committed by the then PIO. The CIC expressed severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in having evaded the responsibility to act in letter and spirit of RTI Act by adjudicating the First Appeal of the Appellant on its own rather than forwarding the same to the concerned FAA. The CIC severely admonished the PIO on this count and cautioned the PIO to be careful in future.
Comments
If the PIO starts replying to the First Appeal as though it is a routine correspondence, it would imply exceeding the jurisdiction mandated under the RTI Act and would make the adjudication of First Appeal infructuous per se.
Citation: Ashok Krishn v. Kendriya Vidyalaya in File No: CIC/KVSAN/A/2020/110307, Date of Decision: 06/08/2021

The Appellant contended that his First Appeal was not adjudicated, consequently he had to file this Second Appeal. He further pointed out that the written submission dated 12.08.2021, had not been sent to the Appellant, which is against the spirit of natural justice. The CIC expressed agreement with the Appellant’s contention that non adjudication of the First Appeal led to filing of this Second Appeal. Likewise, it was also noted that the written submissions dated 12.08.2021 submitted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to the CIC were not marked to the Appellant. The said submissions are self-explanatory and the Respondent has even explained the cause of non-adjudication of the First Appeal to corruption of the hard disc drive. The CIC directed the PIO to send a complete set of written submissions dated 12.08.2021 to the Appellant. The CIC remarked that all parties shall, as a matter of practice, always serve an advance copy of submissions to the opposite party, in future, for a fair and effective hearing.
Comments
The submission of an advance copy of submissions to the opposite party would help in early disposal of appeals.
Citation: Love Gogia V/s National Human Rights Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/NHRCM/A/2019/647382, Date of Decision: 17.08.2021
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

CCTV footage of court hall of Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune was denied. Applicant argued that the purpose of the CCTV was public safety as well as transparency of judicial process and the respondent was under an obligation to disclose the CCTV footage. The PIO referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradyuman Bhisht v. Union of India [WP No. 99/2015] wherein it was observed that the footage of the CCTV Camera will not be available under the RTI and will not be supplied to anyone without permission of the concerned High Court. The CIC held that the Disclosure of the CCTV footage might endanger the physical safety of individuals whose movement was covered on that footage. In the absence of any larger public interest, there appears to be no infirmity with the stand taken by the respondent..
Comments
With the Covid pandemic, a large number of hearings are taking place virtually. Perhaps, the law should evolve to set a procedure for the obtaining the recordings of CCTV and the Court proceedings..
Citation: Adv Mahadeo Avhad v. Debts Recovery Tribunal in Second Appeal No. CIC/DRTPU/A/2019/645775, Date: 29.12.2021
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 filed an RTI application seeking information on about the itinerary of PM Narendra Modi during a few days of February, 2019 and the details of his meeting with Bear Grylls, a renowned survival expert. Vide interim reply, the PIO at PMO intimated that the matter is being processed by the office and information will be sent as soon as possible. The FAA directed the PIO to expedite furnishing the response within 25 working days. Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the CIC. The CIC observed that an appropriate response in compliance with the FAA’s order has been provided to the Appellant, albeit a slight delay for which the PIO, PMO was cautioned.
Comments
Every PIO must ensure a timely reply to an application filed under the RTI Act failing which the CIC may pass a stricture or impose penalty.
Citation: Shri Goutham Ganesh M H v. PMO in Second Appeal No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/656741, Date of Decision: 31.12.2021
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 total number of requests received under Section 69 and Rules there under from various agencies between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2016. The PIO informed that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. Further, the records pertaining to lawful interception are destroyed as per provisions contained in Sub-Rule 18 of the Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The Respondent added that statistics of requests may be available with the Department of Telecom as the Review Committee under Rule 22 of the IT (Procedure and safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 is dealt by this department. Hence the RTI application had been transferred to the actual custodian of information, viz. the Department of Telecom. The CIC found no reason to intervene in the matter.
Comments
In terms of the Sub-Rule 18 of the Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, records pertaining to directions for interception and of intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months. When the records have been destroyed as per the provisions of law, copies of the same cannot be provided.
Citation: Shri Avdhesh Kumar v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/ISDIV/A/2019/640226, 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

Complaint against alleged illegal postings of officials of VPT and alleged illegal activities of certain officials was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI with the remark that the matter was under investigation before the Vigilance Department. On second appeal, the CIC held that the denial of information by the PIO with the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act was not appropriate rather he should have denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act..
Comments
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010) explained the term “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied..
Citation: R Deepak v. Ministry of Shipping in Files No.: CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118056+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118050+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118058+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118059+ CIC/DSHIP/A/2020/118060, Date of Decision: 23/12/2021
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 CPIO), M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, denied the information sought in the RTI Application by stating that “the information sought is not available with this CPIO.” Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the CIC requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Before the CIC, the CPIO Shri Rajeev Ranjan submitted that since the information sought was not available with their office, accordingly the same has been informed to the complainant. Therefore, in his opinion this was the only reply which should have been given to the complainant. The CIC observed that the CPIO is not required to give his own judgments on the issue but he should have specifically/point-wise denied it that the information sought is not available as per their records or should have sought the assistance of the concerned CPIO/department under section 5(4) of the Act in order to give specific reply. Terming any information unnecessary is not warranted. The Commission took a serious note of this fact and held that the conduct of the then CPIO is highly objectionable. A show-cause notice was issued to the CPIO why penalty should not be imposed for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) held that it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. CPIO M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665367, 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 Appellant filed an RTI application seeking entire file relating to action taken on his complaint against Dr. Amulya Singh before Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical Registration, Patna. The Deputy Secretary, Board of Governors in supercession of Medical Council of India informed the appellant that the query pertains to Bihar Council of Medical Registration, Patna and whom further details could be obtained. There was no transfer of application under section 6(3) by the CPIO. On second appeal, the CIC held that no further intervention is required in the instant Appeal..
Comments
Vide OMs/circular No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008, the DoPT had observed that if a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/ UT Administration. Application in such a case need not be transferred to the State Government/ UT Administration. The OM in not likely to stand judicial scrutiny, if challenged.
Citation: Shri Arvind Kumar v. National Medical Commission in CIC/MEDCI/A/2019/160141, Date of Decision: 20.12.2021
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 filed RTI Application seeking information on eight points. He filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non-receipt of information from the Respondent. The Appellant requested the CIC to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. The CIC observed that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information to the Appellant on the pretext of the instant RTI Application exceeding the word limit as per the RTI Act. Holding the reply as unsuitable and inappropriate, the CIC cautioned the Respondent to be careful in future, while handling matters pertaining to the RTI Act.
Comments
No application filed under the RTI Act can be rejected on the ground that it exceeds a specified number of words.
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