instruction
stringlengths 233
20.3k
| response
stringlengths 35
30.9k
|
|---|---|
Information about pension benefits and nomination done by late husband
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding total amount due and nomination done by his late husband for his GPF, gratuity, insurance, pension during the period 1991 to 2009. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that instead of providing the information sought in her RTI application the PIO as well as the FAA have given an evasive reply stating that her late husband’s terminal dues viz. pensionary benefits, PF, gratuity etc. could not paid due to non-receipt of essential documents from her. The PIO did not attend the hearing. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO stating that by not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had no intention to give any evasive reply and the fact of the matter is that when the claim of the appellant was being processed another lady claiming to be the first wife of the deceased husband, appeared before him with a marriage certificate and laid claim to his terminal benefits. Under such circumstances, the rules of the department prescribe that the claimant(s) should bring a ‘succession certificate’ from the competent court. Therefore, he informed the appellant that the pension case was not settled for want of some essential documents by which he meant the ‘succession certificate’. The document (viz. succession certificate) was also necessary to decide whether the information sought by the appellant could be disclosed to her as a bona-fide successor or she is a third party to whom the information cannot be disclosed being exempt under Section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. He pleaded that there was no intention whatsoever to deliberately delay/deny the information, which in any case was disclosable only to a bona-fide successor after proper identification.
|
The Commission observed that the information was disclosable only to the bona-fide successor of the deceased, for which purpose the ‘succession certificate’ was an essential document and that there was no intention on part of the PIO to deliberately deny the information. The CIC dropped the penalty proceedings noting that the explanation offered by the PIO is plausible and he has not malafidely denied the information sought.
|
Information cannot be denied merely because disciplinary proceedings are pending
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking information relating to a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him along with the details of the authority which had sanctioned the institution of the disciplinary proceedings. He also wanted the orders issued in the course of enquiry along with the file notings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that it would impede the process of investigation.
ProceedingsDuring the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO could not have denied the information without showing how it was exempt under the said provision. The appellant also argued that the particular exemption provision did not apply to disciplinary proceedings against civil servants. He stated that neither the PIO nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had passed speaking order. The respondent submitted that all the information sought concerned the disciplinary proceedings still pending and that was the reason why it was considered that the disclosure of such information might adversely affect the proceedings underway.
|
The Commission held that while denying any information, the PIO should explain in detail how a particular exemption provision is attracted to the information under question. It is not enough to invoke an exemption provision and deny the information. The CIC further stated that not every single file noting recorded by the competent authority while approving the institution of the disciplinary proceedings or the appointment of the enquiry officer or while rejecting the representation made by the appellant would attract the above exemption provision. The information can be denied only if the competent authority in the organisation thinks that the disclosure would make the disciplinary proceedings difficult or impossible.
The Commission directed the PIO to revisit the RTI requests and list out that information which he can disclose without affecting adversely the process of the disciplinary proceedings. The CIC held that the file noting in which the competent authority had approved of instituting disciplinary proceedings or the appointment of the enquiry and presenting officers or decided to reject the representation of the appellant can probably be disclosed without affecting the pending disciplinary proceedings. The Commission also observed that some of the documents are to be disclosed to the charge-sheeted officer routinely under the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings and directed the PIO to verify the relevant records including the file noting relating to the various items of information sought. In case, the PIO decides not to disclose any of this information, he must pass a speaking order explaining in some detail why a particular exemption provision is being invoked to withhold the information.
|
Information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India
Background:
The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) seeking information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India along with any other documents pertaining to the efforts to coordinate a joint-registration with Pakistan etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the application filed by APEDA to register Basmati as a geographical indication has been opposed by various parties representing competitive interests and the matter is pending before the Geographical Indications Registry. The PIO also stated that as such the matter is sub-judice and disclosure of any information would affect the competitive positions of the stake holders on whose behalf the application has been filed, hence disclosure of information was exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that APEDA is representing the rights of the stakeholders in the geographical indication Basmati in various proceedings, all over the world. The proceedings in Pakistan involve commercially and politically sensitive information. Disclosure of such information could lead to unwarranted public debate which in turn could prejudice or unduly influence the outcome of these proceedings. The FAA further ruled that they hold this information in fiduciary capacity. Thus, the disclosure of such information is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.
|
The Commission observed that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest which warrants the disclosure of such information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent.
|
Seeking information related to UNICEF and NGOs using RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Registrar General of India seeking information related to proposal either mooted by or received from UNICEF/ NGOs in respect of imparting training to the DCO wise Master Trainers/ Enumerators for conducting House Listing operation and Census 2011 and the National Population Register with 50% participation etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought is available with UNICEF and as soon it is received the same would be provided. While hearing the second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information and also issued show cause notice to the PIO for causing a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing of the show cause notice, the PIO submitted that the information asked by the appellant was held jointly by his office and the UN Organization. Since UN organizations did not fall under the control of Government of India and involved international relations, it was felt necessary to seek inputs form the UN Bodies before sharing any information with any third person. In due course of time, the information held by them and as received from the UN Bodies was uploaded on the office website for free download. He further stated that on the directions of the Commission, the requisite information under the control of his office has already been provided to the appellant free of cost.
|
The Commission observed that the PIO committed that as soon as the information was received, he would provide the same to the appellant but he never provided the information till the matter was heard in the Commission. The CIC also noted that most of the information was already available with the PIO / public authority and the PIO did not bother to part with the information. Holding that there was no application of mind on the part of the PIO., the CIC ruled that the explanation given by the PIO does not fall within the reasonable cause of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act and he is liable for the penalty. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the PIO for obstructing the disclosure of information to the appellant.
|
Can copy of documents be sought in vigilance cases citing ‘public interest’?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking copy of Departmental charge-sheet issued to two people in relation to KVP Embezzlement at Medical College Post Office. He also sought the copy of departmental order disposing the charge sheet of one individual. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the third party has declined to give his consent for the disclosure of the information and hence the same was exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the accused is involved in a huge fraud of Rs. 3 crores and the entire process of disciplinary proceedings against him has been concluded. He has also been held guilty and hence the information is disclosable in larger public interest. The PIO further stated that the appellant himself is involved in the aforesaid fraud and is only trying to obtain advantage for himself by seeking third party information and hence he does not see any larger public interest in disclosing the information to him. He added that the appellant is litigating his matter before the Honourable High Court and he can seek access to any information which he needs for his defense through the Court and not through the RTI Act as it may amount to interference in the Court’s discretion.
|
The Commission referred to an earlier decision of Supreme Court [Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.- Link :http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf] wherein it was held that the expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ‘public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. The CIC ruled that the appellant wanted the information for his own benefit and not for the welfare of the public at large and hence this would not be an appropriate case for the Commission to override the statutory exemption provided under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
|
Addressing the issue of non-receipt of PF through RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) seeking information about Form number 6A and 3A of EPF deposits for employees working at a particular Industry and a godown. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that appellant had asked for copies of annual returns filed by the employees which cannot be disclosed as it contains sensitive details relating to various PF subscribers and is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that he is a contractual employee but his provident fund is not being deposited by the contractor(s) and he wanted the matter to be investigated by an enforcement officer. The respondent further stated that he will get the matter investigated and a copy of the report would be provided to the appellant.
|
The Commission directed the respondent to get the appellant’s matter investigated by an enforcement officer and provide a copy of the report to him within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
|
CIC - Commissioner, DMC to take cognizance of delay in property tax entry
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) seeking details of the posting of realization in the Ledger Accounts of Tax Payer (Property Tax). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that there is usually a huge time gap between the payment of property tax and its entry in the ledger account and sometimes as long as over four years. He also stated that neither superior officer regularly monitors the timely and accurate entry of the tax realization in the ledger nor are the entries in the ledger tallied with the cash book through which receipts for property tax are issued. The respondent stated that he has taken over charge recently and can provide information for the year 2012 – 2013 onwards and that he has personally addressed the issue. The respondent further stated that as the appellant has not sought information in respect of a particular property, he is unable to provide information in response to a general and wide query. The appellant stated that through his RTI application, he is addressing a larger malaise/ lacuna in the existing system. He submitted that it was not uncommon for individuals to approach the property tax department and have large number of entries made in the ledger account on the basis of receipts held by them on a single day. Such a practice could result in entries being made in the ledger account on the basis of unverified receipts resulting in huge losses to the exchequer.
|
The Commission observed that the issue highlighted through the RTI application is a matter of larger public interest which warrants information to be provided even if it is to be collected from several sources/ files. The CIC directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant regarding property tax entries made in the ledger account and tallied with the entries in the cash book for the certain period. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the information where such entries had not been made even though the cash book shows receipt issued against property tax paid.The Commission further directed the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation to take cognizance of this matter and take necessary corrective action by issuing suitable directives to the concerned officials. The Commission held that this recommendation is made in the spirit of the preamble of the RTI Act which supports the efficient operation of the Governments along with optimum use of limited financial resources.
Comments
The situation remains more or less the same in the rest of the cities of the country. Can the property tax payment not be made online?
|
Can a PIO transfer the application to one of his colleague in the same department?
Background:
An application was filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking information regarding total number of account holder in postal savings with saving bank, MIS, PPF etc. at the respective post offices in Bangalore Urban Area during the financial years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 respectively. The appellant also sought the monthly turnover/collections at the above post offices during the said financial years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had requested for sub post office wise information but only the consolidated number of accounts was furnished to him. The respondent submitted that the information requested by the appellant it is not being compiled at the central level and was scattered in 187 sub-post offices and compilation of the same would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority. He also stated that there were some PIOs covering Bangalore Urban area whose names and other details are mentioned in the website and if the appellant makes an RTI application to them they will transfer the same to the respective sub-post offices with instructions to furnish the information directly to the appellant. The appellant pointed out that in response to one of the queries, the PIO intimated that the information can be obtained by filing an application with the Director of Accounts (Postal) Bangalore, whereas he should have either sought his assistance under section 5(4) or transferred his application as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant demanded that penal action should be initiated against the respondent under section 20 for not providing the information.
|
The Commission observed that PIO is expected to provide the information available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. The CIC accepted the contentions of the PIO relating to the collecting and compiling of data from 187 sub post offices stating that such attempts would not allow for scrutiny of public action to detect and determine the nature and extent of deviation from the accepted polices. The Commission, however, agreed that the PIO should either have sought the assistance of his counterpart in the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal) Bangalore or transferred this part of the RTI application to him for supply of information. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. Regarding the appellant’s plea for imposition of penalty, the Commission referred to a decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) 3114/2007, decided on 03/12/2007 (Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs) and held that the appellant has not been able to establish any mala-fide on the part of the PIO; hence, penalty cannot be imposed on him.
|
Seeking submissions made by public authority before CIC in an earlier hearing
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) with reference to a decision given by the Commission in case no. CIC/AD/A/2012/002723. The applicant sought the copy of terms and conditions based on which the Commission was informed by the respondent in the earlier hearing that a license is given for operating a kitchen in the open only on condition that it operates under a covered area and in sanitary/ hygienic conditions. The applicant also sought the details of the definition of the word ‘Covered’ along with the rules/terms & conditions to operate a kitchen under a cloth roof and open on all 4 sides. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copy of site plan of the Hotel to which the matter related and stated that the definition of the covered area can be obtained from Civil Engineering/ Architect Department. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) stated that copy of the site plan, health license and the terms & conditions of the health license issued to Hotel Diplomat have already been provided to the appellant in the earlier case.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that Health License has been issued to the Hotel Diplomat for the preparation, storage and sale of aerated water, tea, coffee, bakery products and food items inside the building from health point of view under section 331 of NDMC Act. The appellant pointed out that this reply is proof of the fact that license is to be given for preparation of food items in the kitchen only inside the building and not in the garden. The respondent explained that the term inside the building that he had used in his reply referred to the whole premises of the hotel including the covered area of the garden and hence there is no contradiction in his replies. Regarding the terms and conditions which reflect the submission of the respondent to the Commission in the earlier case, the respondent clarified that there are no such terms and conditions and that he had mentioned “Covered area” since while implementing the section 331 of NDMC Act it is understood that the kitchen in the garden is automatically covered with some kind of roof in order to ensure sanitation and hygiene.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to intimate the appellant in writing that the term ‘inside the building’ also meant the covered area in the garden. The CIC also directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the non - availability of terms and conditions in respect of ‘covered area while also clarifying why the term has been used.
|
Who appoints the Ministers in Minister of Environment and Forests?
Background:
The appellantreferred to some news item published in a daily newspaper regarding the removal of the then Minister of Environment and Forests. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking information regarding that news report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) PMO, Cabinet Secretariat andtheMinistry of Environment and Forest (MoEF),separately informed the appellant that there was no information available in respect of his queries. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the MoEF had nothing to do with the appointment of the Minister.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO cannot validate the news item report. The CIC held that under the Constitution of India, the President of India appoints ministers at the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister and it is not for the PIO of one or the other establishments of the Government of India to speculate why a particular Minister is posted to any Ministry. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that none of the public authorities which had handled the RTI application have any information on these queries.
|
Seeking information regarding a government bungalow's occupation under RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theCentral public works department (CPWD) seeking detailed information regarding a news item about a government bungalow's occupation, unauthorized structures, rent, various permissions and authorizations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the points raised in the RTI application do not concern CPWD. The appellant stated that to avoid giving information, the respondent has sent copies of the RTI application to various departments as mandated by section 5(4) of the RTI Act without any coordination. This has resulted in waste of public resources with the appellant getting no information. The respondent stated that CPWD is related to the bungalow maintenance, and the issues of allotment, rent recovery and other matters in the RTI application is not part of their work. The appellant argued that his RTI application was actually meant for the Directorate of Estates and that the various points need to be handled comprehensively, which can best be done by the Directorate of Estates functioning under the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). The appellant also submitted that coordination among the different wings of MoUD is important to avoid confusion, for instance, he had been informed by the CPWD that the house in question was under occupation whereas the Directorate of Estates on the same issue had informed him that the house was un-allotted.
|
The Commission observed that the possibility for conflicting pieces of information from different wings of the government could not be ruled out. The Commission ruled that issues in the present RTI application have been addressed earlier by the Commission and directions given to the concerned public authorities. The points are not new; hence agitating the matter again through the present RTI application would not be appropriate. This is not a case for de novo adjudication. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that no further intervention is required at the level of the Commission.
Comments
What is required to be done by the Information Commission if an appeal is filed to it pointing out that there is conflicting information from different public authorities?
|
Information about the quantum of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Wakf Board seeking information about the total hectares of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board,the detail of number of Masjids and Madrassas under its jurisdiction, the number of employees and their salaries etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) providedsome information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), therespondent submitted that this information in hectares is not available in their records. The respondent also stated that the area on which various properties are situated are not available on record in several cases and a register is available in the office which contains areas of land on which some properties are situated. He also showed the willingness to allow the appellant to inspect the register to the appellant.
|
The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous in nature and directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the said register so that the appellant can compile the information for himself. The Commission also directed the PIO under the supervision and guidance of the competent Authority to disclose the complete information as it exists in their records on the concerned website of the Delhi WAKF Board as per provisions of section4(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.of the RTI act.
Comments
WAKF properties in many parts of the country have been in dispute for alleged mismanagement. Putting up the details of the same in public domain is likely to lead to a better administration of the same.
|
Who authorizes the declaration of National Flag, National Tree, and National Fruit?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF) seeking copies of those orders by which the Central government had declared the National Flag, National Tree, National Fruit etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed thatthat the MoEF may have some notification declaring the National River, National Fruit and the National Tree.The CIC directed the PIO that if they have any such notification, then he shouldsend a copy of that to the appellant.
|
Should inward and outward call lists of official phone be provided under RTI?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking the inward and outward call lists in respect of a particular telephone number for certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to give the information under RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information is related to third party and is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has not cited any public interest in seeking the information. The appellant argued that in a similar case the BSNL authorities have given him third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise. He further contended that the telephone for which he is seeking the information is an official phone.
|
The Commission referred to two of its earlier decisions (Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/09/00329) and (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836) wherein it was held that the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. The installation, maintenance and the usage of these phones are financed by the public authority’s budget. Norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is every possibility of certain call(s) being personal; hence, in the absence of any public interest the appellant’s contention cannot be sustained. The appellant’s other argument that BSNL authorities have disclosed third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise is without merit.
|
Seeking information regarding complaint against Reliance entities using RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Prosecution seeking to know whether any legal opinion was sought by the Economic Offenses Wing, Delhi Police from the Directorate of Prosecution in respect of the complaint filed by him against Reliance Money Limited, Reliance Securities Limited, Reliance Capital Limited and Reliance Commodities Limited. He also sought the file notings on every aspect of the RTI petition and on the movement of the RTI petition. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case file of the matter was received in the Prosecution Branch for legal opinion and after examining the matter, the file was returned to the investigating agency and the office does not have the copy of the said matter.On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided some additional information.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), theappellant stated that the PIO had not provided complete reply in compliance with the FAA’s order. The appellant also alleged that there had been a delay in transferring the RTI application to the PIO of Delhi Police. The respondent stated that the appellant has already been informed that the concerned file was returned to the Delhi Police and that the details of movement of file were provided to the appellant.
|
The Commission held that since information is not available with the Directorate of Prosecution, no point specific reply can be authorized for disclosure by the Commission. However, the CIC directed the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution to furnish an affidavit affirming the fact that the file(s) have been returned to the Delhi Police and that no further information is available in the records of the Directorate of Prosecution. The Commission also noted that the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution had transferred the RTI Application to the Delhi Police after a delay of nearly a month from the receipt of the RTI application. A show cause notice was issued to the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution by the CIC to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for obstructing the supply of information by violating section 6(3) of the RTI Act which stipulates that such transfer should take place within 5 days of receipt of the RTI application. Regarding the file notings on movement of the RTI petition, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant file and provide him with the file noting/any other document identified by him thereafter.
|
How is the work distributed between the MoEF of centre and state?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF) seekingvariety of information such as the nature of the work distribution between the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Central Government and the counterpart department in the State Government. He also wanted to know if it was the responsibility of the Central Government to implement the standard of providing six big trees for every human being in order to fulfill his oxygen needs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant expressed his dissatisfaction that his queries had not been properly answered. The Commission observed that most of queries were beyond the purview of the RTI Act. The CIC held that it is the Constitution of India which clearly lays down the list of subjects falling in the respective domain of the Central and State Governments; it is not for the Ministry to advise any citizen in this regard. Regarding the other query, the CIC noted that it is a purely presumptive question based on the personal opinion of the information seeker. The PIO cannot be expected to manufacture information for the pleasure of the appellant. The Commission also held that the type of queries made by the appellant shows complete lack of clarity or specificity in his articulation.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a copy of the relevant extracts from the allocation of business rules listing the items of subjects falling within the domain of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
|
Report of bus accident prepared by the investigator of New India Assurance Company Limited
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New India Assurance Company Limited(NIACL) seeking Investigation report of a particular case and other connected cases as prepared by the Public Authority pending before MACT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the court/ police authorities are the holder of information and not the Public Authority.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified that he is not seeking a copy of the police report but wishes to have a copy of the Investigators Report which was commissioned by the insurer. The appellant also submitted that many persons were hurt in the bus accident in which two persons died and the NIACL had appointed Investigator who prepared the report after visiting the homes of many victims. The respondent submitted that the MACT and other courts will only accept the police report and that the evidence value of the investigators report is minimal and therefore there is no larger public interest in the disclosure of this report that was commissioned by the insurer for their own use.
|
The Commission observed that the appellant is closely related to the matter as he is the legal counsel for the victims of the accident. TheCommission directed the PIOto provide the investigators report to the appellant. The CIC also held that the disclosure of the information would further the larger public interest of Administration of Justice.
|
PIO should give specific date to the applicant for inspection of records
Background:
The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking some information related to the service of Justice R.M.S Khandeparker, Ex. President of CESTAT from the date of appointment till the date of his retirement. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information after the inspection done by the appellant of the relevant file. The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) for not providing the sought information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the file was inspected repeatedly by the RTI applicant on various dates under various RTI applications. The respondent also submitted the details of the inspection and copies supplied to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the applicant has filed many RTI applications and he visits the department on regular basis for inspection, therefore, he was offered inspection of relevant file on his next date of visit. The appellant submitted that the entire file was not made available to him for inspection only certain pages were made available to him for inspection.
|
The Commission observed that while inviting the appellant for inspection it would have been appropriate to give a certain date of inspection rather than stating that the appellant may inspect the file on his next visit. The Commission held that there do not seem to be malafide intention of the PIO in doing so and the information has already provided to the appellant. The Commission dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO.
Comments
This site recommends that 2 to 3 alternative dates may be provided by the PIO for inspection of records. This would show the sincerity on the part of the PIO and also avoid unnecessary correspondence in case the applicant is unable to come for inspection on a particular day.
|
Demanding for the details of staff working at IIM Indore through RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore seeking information relating to staff working in IIM Indore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information on several of the queries was available on their website and in respect of others information, he observed that it was voluminous and would require compilation which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Institute. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) offered inspection of documents to the appellant which was not availed by him.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) concurred with the decision of the PIO/FAA and directed the PIO to provide inspection of the concerned records to the appellant.
Comment
It is seen that on many occasions, the RTI applicants seek information which is not specific. Such applications are a drain on the public time and money. Asking for information which is huge and vaguely worded should be avoided.
|
Should the copy of RTI application be enclosed while filing the second appeal?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South East Central Railway seeking information about the food being served in 2nd and 3rd AC coaches including the officials to whom complaint can be lodged in the event the food is not up to the mark etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while enclosing copies of some relevant documents.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC noted that the appellant has enclosed the wrong RTI Application. The appellant stated that the PIO’s and the FAA’s replies that were enclosed by him pertained to another RTI Application in which he sought information in respect of duties of GRP in reserved coaches. The Commission held that the original RTI application is not available in the records, hence they were not able to adjudicate on this matter. The respondent stated that complete information as available in the records has been furnished to the appellant and that no further information on the subject matter is available in their records.
|
The Commission observed that since the appellant has enclosed the wrong RTI application, the Commission is constrained to dismiss the instant appeal.
Comments
If a document has been wrongly enclosed by the appellant, shouldn’t he be given an opportunity to make an amendment? As per the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (Link:http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/RTIRules2012dated31July2012.pdf), “No appeal shall be dismissed only on the ground that it has not been made in the specified format if it is accompanied by document as specified in rule 8”.
|
Disclosure of the details of top 100 defaulters of the Bank
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information about top huge loan defaulters, copy of the audit report conducted by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) during a certain period and action taken report submitted by the bank to RBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent referred to an earlier decision of the Commission (in Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2007/01082) wherein it was held that a onetime settlement arrived at by the bank in respect of a Nonperforming Account was a matter of commercial confidence and the bank was under no obligation to disclose such information. The respondent also referred to Commission's another decision (No.451/IC (A)/2006 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00511), in which it was held that for effective management and recovery of loans for which the Bank is responsible, if any lapses are detected in the audit reports, it is not necessary for a citizen to scrutinize such action.
|
The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the approach of the bank was in conformity with the RTI Act.
|
Using RTI to obtain the details of text and picture messages received from a mobile number
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking details of text and picture messages received from a particular number to his mobile. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that technically it is not possible to extract any information relating to text and picture messages from the system. He further clarified that even CDR relating to the above period cannot be provided as the preservation period for such information is only one year. The appellant wanted to know whether there is any exemption from disclosure of such information under the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that there is no bar in disclosing the information, if available in the system.
|
The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information requested by the appellant is not available in the records.
|
Should information about employees who were removed from service be revealed?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Canara Bank seeking information about employees who were imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement or were removed from service. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the RTI application.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had sought information about the details of various personnel in the bank who have been penalized with the punishment of removal of service or dismissal or who have been compulsory retired during the period specified. The respondent stated that the appellant also wanted to know about the gratuity that was paid to the employees and any other settlement with the employees along with the details of any forfeiture of the benefits consequent to disciplinary proceedings. The respondent further stated that this information was personal and confidential hence it was denied under the pertinent clauses of the RTI Act. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
|
The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal.
|
Reasons for charging extra premium on insurance policy was sought
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding the reasons for charging extra premium from her. She desired the copy of letter/ remarks of the Zonal/ Divisional referees addressed to LIC, which they have given the advice with detailed reasoning to charge CL II health extra based on the test reports of ECG and CTMT submitted by the panel doctors of the Corporation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that what has been sought by the appellant does not fall under the definition of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she had the right to know the recorded reasons on the basis of which the insurer had taken decision to increase the premium in respect of insurance policy even though her health parameters as shown by the ECG report and tracing and CTMT report summary are clearly within the normal limits.
|
The Commission observed that the applicant has the right to access information which pertains to her own health status. The Commission held that the formula/ calculations on the basis of which the figure of higher premium had been arrived at certainly falls within the exemption clause of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act but it has not been sought by the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide attested photo copies of the documents to the appellant, after severing the names of the medical referees as per section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act.
|
Seeking Income Tax details of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) using RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking to know the income tax paid by a particular Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Aligarh City for certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of said person was not available and hence, the requested information cannot be supplied.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the view taken by the PIO could not be approved, as in a small city the MLA is an important person. If he is an income tax assessee, then it is not difficult for the PIO to trace his PAN Card number. The Commission directed the PIO to trace the PAN and then take a decision as to whether requested information is to be supplied or not under the law. The CIC also held that the appellant can exercise his right under section 19 of the RTI Act for filing appeals as per law if he is not satisfied with the decision of thePIO.
Comments
The order of the CIC calls for interesting observations:-
|
Does the third party have a veto in case of RTI application seeking information about it?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking the list of Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions belonging to the Veltech Group of Institutions and its deemed universities which have been given AICTE and University Grant Commission (UGC) approvals. The appellant also wanted some more information in respect of each of these Institutions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the list of the Institutions of the Trust to the appellant. Regarding the rest of the information the PIO issued a notice to the Trust under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Secretary of the Trust denied the information stating that the related issue was pending before the State Government of Tamil Nadu and details of properties held by the private trust are not available for public.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the response of the Trust cannot be said to be a proper response under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Trust seems to have virtually decided the case on behalf of the PIO, ACITE. The CIC observed that a notice was issued to the Trust for intimating its views as to whether it was agreeable to the disclosure of the requested information. Instead of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the Trust usurped the authority of PIO. The Commission ordered that a fresh notice may be issued to the Trust under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and it may be asked to take a decision as to whether it is agreeable to the disclosure of the requested information and then the PIO should decide the matter as per law.
Comments
A PIO is expected to take into account the submissions of a third party before deciding a case. But, the third party does not have the right to veto the decision, the PIO should use his judgment based on facts on record.
|
Should Universities provide copy of research theses under RTI?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JLNU) seeking information regarding M.Phil, Ph.D. and D.Lit degree awarded to various scholars in Sanskrit etc. He also wanted the copies of the theses submitted by the scholars.The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied the list of scholars who were awarded M.Phil and Ph.D degrees. Regarding the D.Lit degree he informed the appellant that no such degree has been awarded to anyone.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that it is not possible to supply copies of the theses to the appellant as this would put undue strain on the resources of the University. The respondent also stated that they have no objection to give inspection of the theses to the appellant in their Central Library on a mutually convenient date and time.
|
The Commission held that it was not practical possible to supply copies of such a large number of dissertations’ to the appellant. These dissertations were maintained at the Universities for consultation by successive generation on scholars. The CIC ruled that the appellant has liberty to visit the Central Library to consult these dissertations’.
|
Can an Income Tax assessee seek copies of documents said to be in his possession?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax department (IT) seeking list of books of account and other records seized by the IT department during a raid on a particular Woolen Mills in 1993. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that during the course of search proceedings, a copy of the panchnama is provided to the assessee stating details of seizures. As such the appellant is already in possession of the same and seeking information under the RTI Act would amount to diversion of public resources disproportionately. Hence the information was denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the said firm was dissolved as per his notice dated 12.5.1993 and IT authorities conducted search in the premises in October 1993. He also clarified that the details sought by him are in the custody of other partners and no documents are available with him. The appellant also stated that he needed the information for the case pending in Ludhiana court.
|
The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant can be classified under two categories as the documents pertaining to the period before dissolution and after dissolution of the firm. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish details of the seized documents which pertain to the period prior to dissolution of the firm.
|
Who regulates the private courier companies in the country?
Background:
The appellant claimed that a large number of illegal courier agencies are operating in Delhi which accepts the goods of the dealers /retailers / whole sellers. At these agencies, the goods for delivery are under billed or fake bills are produced and in some cases there is no bill and there is huge loss to the exchequer. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking information regarding such illegal agencies such as whether any action has been taken by the department for huge loss incurred to the State exchequer, whether any survey has been conducted by the department to eradicate such menace at the instant/behest of the courier company etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not give any information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that there are a number of illegal courier companies operating in Delhi and he wanted to know whether they are required to be registered with the post offices. The PIO stated that the post offices are not the competent authority for registering and regulating courier companies and this would be to the appellant also.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the aforesaid in writing to the appellant.
|
Application filed under RTI is valid only if it is accompanied by the application fee
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) seeking information about laptop ‘Akash’ Project and the matters related there-with. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The appellant claimed that the PIO had not responded within the prescribed time frame and filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the RTI application was not accompanied by the requisite fee and only when the fee was deposited by the appellant the application was duly responded to and that there has been no delay.
|
The Commission observed that a citizen acquires the legal right to seek information only if his RTI application is accompanied by the requisite fee and non-deposition of fee disentitles him from seeking information. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the delay stands explained and the requisite information has already been supplied to the appellant.
|
The level of the roads seems to be rising over the years – Should the residents suffer?
Background:
The adjunct case was discussing in the case in which the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking copy of the approved sanction plan of property. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the said document is not traceable but they have been able trace out the sanction plan of another property, which was approved around the same time as the appellant's property in 1970. The PIO presented the file and showed to the original sanction plan in respect of this property, and also provided to the appellant. Further the Assistant Engineer (B) stated that he had submitted note to his superior officers, highlighting the problems arising on account of raising of road level. In his note, the officer highlighted the plight of those house owners who construct their houses while adhering to the minimum prescribed mandatory plinth height but are made to suffer when the surrounding road is raised by the concerned public authorities. As a consequence, the plinth height as measured from the road level is reduced due to no fault of the house owners leading to demolition orders as this deficiency is neither permissible nor compoundable.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the sincere efforts have been made for locating the information but it cannot be denied that due to poor record management, the file holding the sanctioned building plan of the appellant’s property is not traceable even though it is part of permanent record. After viewing the condition of the files pertaining to 1970 which have been brought before the it, the CIC noted that the records are in a state of complete disintegration. The CIC strongly recommend in terms of section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act that special funds for digitizing the old permanent record of the three MCDs be made available for conducting special drive for computerization. In view of the larger public interest in the issue that has come to light during the hearing pertaining to the unauthorized raising of roads while carpeting/ repairing to the detriment of the house owners (as this causes flooding of houses), the CIC asked for a copy of the final outcome of the proposal mooted by the AE/ Building Plan – II and current status of the proposal. The Commission directed the PIO that a copy of this order should be marked to the Commissioners of the three MCDs so that the issues that have come to the fore in the present hearing also pass through their eyes. Further, a copy of the orders issued by the three MCD Commissioners in regard to the computerization and digitization of the old permanent record will also be provided to the Commission.
Comments
All over the country, the house owners who construct their houses while adhering to the minimum prescribed mandatory plinth height are facing this problem of rising road levels. They suffer when the surrounding road is raised by the concerned municipal corporation. This calls for a review of the whole process of repair and maintenance of roads.
|
Forum of Information Commission should not be used for settling personal scores
Background:
The appellant had made a representation to the Defence Minister of India making allegations against the Chief Administrative Officer, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS), regarding his involvement in corrupt practices etc. and seeking reasons for his continued posting in INMAS for almost 10 years. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theDefence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) seeking to know the action taken on his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) referred to an earlier decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding a similar RTI application, (Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001804), wherein it was held that the appellant was not seeking information but was articulating his grievance.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has leveled allegations of corruption against the said officer and he is not seeking any information, besides the allegations were not accompanied by any evidence. This Commission rejected the appeal stating that the CIC cannot be allowed to be used as a forum for settling personal scores.
|
Are the details of physically handicapped government employees liable to be disclosed under RTI?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking to know the names and nature of disabilities of handicapped employees of BSNL Nellore District who have been getting the facilities of Professional Tax Exemption, double rate of transport allowance etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while denying the rest under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant has asked for various personal information regarding physically handicapped employees who have been provided various concessions as per laid down guidelines. The Commission asked the respondent as to how the disclosure of name, designation, post and place of posting is covered by the said exemption. The PIO agreed to furnish the information, excluding the details sought in nature of disability.
|
The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the details to the appellant without disclosing the nature of disability of the employees.
|
Can a “token” penalty be imposed on the PIO under the RTI Act?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theCentral Government Health Scheme (CGHS) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any response to the appellant. On the directions of the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO provided a response to the RTI application. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated period.
Proceedings
During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the representative of the PIO submitted that the RTI application was not addressed to the relevant quarters and it reached the PIO’s desk after a long journey.
|
The Commission noted that even after receiving the application, the PIO did not respond to it post haste. He responded only after receipt of notice from the Commission. The CIC held that it is not a case where full penalty of Rs 25,000/- should be imposed on the PIO and the ends of justice would be met by a token penalty. The Commission imposed a token penalty of Rs 500/- on the PIO.
Comments
The only provision in the RTI Act under which penalty can be imposed on a PIO is section 20 which talks of a penalty of 250/- for each day of dealy.
|
Are the records of Rajya Sabha Secretariat catalogued and indexed?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the kind of data maintained by the Rajya Sabha secretariat in compliance of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;of the RTI Act and if no such record was being maintained, he wanted the reason as per the section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that most of the work of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was being done on computers and that much of this information was also being uploaded in the Rajya Sabha website.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as per section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;, every public authority should publish the list of all the files and records along with the subject of each of these so that the information seekers find it easy to identify the exact record they need. The CIC held that appellant has misunderstood the implication of this particular provision; no public authority is required to maintain any specific data relating to this provision. Instead, it is expected to manage its data by properly cataloguing and indexing it with a view to facilitating the right to information. Computerisation of the records is only a means to achieve the goal of better management of records so that the retrieval and publication of information is made easy. The Commission noted that from the response of the PIO, it is not clear if the Rajya Sabha secretariat has catalogued and indexed all its files and records. The CIC held that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat must publish the list of all its files along with the broad subject matter in its website and keep updating it, from time to time. The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authority in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to initiate action in this regard at the earliest and upload the catalogue of all the files and records in its possession. Regarding the compliance of the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-
(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;and section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons., the CIC held that this provision requires all public authorities to record and convey the reasons for their administrative and quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons and there is nothing for the PIO to do in it. The CIC ruled that there is no further information to be disclosed by the PIO to the appellant.
Comments
This order raises a very pertinent question – If the public authority does not record and convey the reasons for their administrative and quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons, who is the responsible for ensuring its implementation responsible? What steps are needed to ensure compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act?
|
Can details of complainant and enquiry report be disclosed to the RTI applicant?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking information about the complaints made against him and copy of the enquiry report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO and denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act stating that if the names of the complainant are disclosed to the appellant, their personal safety may be jeopardized. The appellant as well as the public authority did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC).
|
The Commission referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court (Bihar Public Service CommissionVs Sayed Hussain Abbas Rizvi; Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf) wherein it was held that names of the interviewers or the Members of the Interview Board cannot be disclosed as doing so, would expose them to danger to their lives or physical safety. Besides, it would hamper them in effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. The CIC ruled that disclosure of names of the complainants would expose them to danger to their lives and physical safety. It will also be inhibited in filing complaints in future thereby depriving the Income Tax Department of a potent source of information which may adversely affect the revenues of the State. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that information has been correctly denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
|
Refusal to receive the RTI applications due to incomplete address on the envelopes
Background:
The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking information pertaining to the work orders and lap certificates of all jobs done by the Corporation for certain period. He also sought to do core testing of the materials used. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any response to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the three RTI applications referred to by the appellant had not been received by them. The appellant produced the three envelopes vide which the RTI applications had been sent to the PIOs and stated that the same had been returned back to him by the postal authorities with the statement that an official of the Department has refused to receive the same. The respondent stated that the address written on the envelopes is incomplete and the full designation of the PIO was not given. The respondent further stated that the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which has been annexed by the applicant with second appeal, did not pertain to the three RTI applications which were being heard by the Commission.
|
The Commission observed that the website of the MCD displays the full designation of the PIOs and the appellant has erred in not providing the correct address on the envelopes of his RTI application. All three envelopes were opened in the presence of the Commission and it was confirmed that these three RTI applications were never delivered to the respondent nor did the appellant deposit the prescribed fees. The CIC rejected all the three appeals stating that the appellant has failed to annex the correct order of the FAA and thus it was not possible to adjudicate upon the matter.
|
Can the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes be disclosed?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking details in respect beneficiaries of the Old Age Pension including widows pension and physically challenged person beneficiaries of different categories in Ward No. 9 (years 2011 and 2012). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that information regarding age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme has still not been provided. The respondent submitted that the information is not available in collated manner with the Public Authority regarding the age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme and hence it would not be possible to provide it to the appellant.
|
The Commission observed that the information has to be available with the Public Authority regarding the age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme because the age is the minimal criteria in granting the pension under this scheme. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information regarding the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes to the appellant for the said period.
|
DU asks the applicant to seek answer scripts as per their guidelines
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the University of Delhi seeking copies of answer sheets of the five papers of LLB first year and a copy of his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the University had issued two notifications giving guidelines for obtaining copy of evaluated answer script. The appellant was advised to contact OSD, Controller of Examinations for obtaining copy of the evaluated answer sheets. The PIO also asked the appellant to deposit Rs.12/- for providing the rest of the information.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant questioned the legality of Rs. 750/- per answer script when as per the RTI Act the fee prescribed is Rs 2/- per page.
|
The Commission observed that as per the section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act, the Right to Information means the Right of Information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to information. The CIC also referred to another case which has been dealt with by the High Court of Delhi (in the case of Registrar of Companies and Others Vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg) wherein it was held that information in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedures and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, cannot be said to be information which is held by or under the control of any public authority. The CIC rejected the appeal.
Comments
As per section22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect if there is any inconsistency between the RTI Act and any other law. Can a huge difference in the fee demanded not be termed as an ‘inconsistency’? Giving freedom to different public authorities to fix the fee is bound to give rise to confusion and appears to be against the spirit of transparency for which the RTI Act stands.
|
Can PIO deny the information by simply stating that the information is not available?
Background:
The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Saving Institute seeking two sets of information. In first set, he wanted information regarding certain observations made by the CAT and the recruitment rules for various posts. In the second set, he sought information relating to the proposal for making changes to the recruitment rules as well as to the demands made by the Department to the 4th and 5th Pay Commission in respect of certain posts. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information for first set of queries. Regarding the second set the PIO denied the information stating that the information was not available.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that all the information had not been provided to him and the PIO had deliberately suppressed much of this information. He also claimed that the copy of an appointment order which was provided to him was not legible. The respondent submitted that he had scrupulously called for all the available records from the respective sections and had sent the copies of all those records to the appellant.
|
The Commission noted that some of the queries of the appellant do not come in the purview of the RTI Act. He had cited some observation by the CAT and expected the PIO to find out the details of the matter and inform him about it. The CIC further observed that the appellant had sought clarification on how joint seniority could be maintained on the basis of some recruitment rule, such queries cannot be addressed by the PIO under RTI for its outside his remit to offer clarifications or comments on issues. The CIC however, noted that there is merit in his objection to the fact that a number of information has been denied to him by a simple statement that it is not available. The CIC ruled that if any record is not available in any public authority, there must be some reason for it and if the records have been weeded out because of passage of time, the PIO must clearly state so giving the date for such destruction and also citing the relevant record retention guidelines. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a more legible copy of the appointment order along with the copies of the letters/notes mentioned in the some queries in his RTI application. The CIC also held that if any of the information is not available for any particular reason, the PIO has to clearly state so and provide a copy of the relevant record retention schedule as well as the document showing the destruction of the respective record.
|
Is a time barred appeal liable to be rejected, if no reasons for delay are given?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking copies of register of RTI applications for a particular period and list of RTI applications seeking information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred and that no reasonable ground was given by the appellant for delay in filing the first appeal.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant contained the names and addresses of other persons, therefore the information was denied under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Act. They further submitted that the FAA dismissed the first appeal because the appellant had filed it after 6 months from the date of order of the PIO and therefore it was time barred and not maintainable. The respondent also added that no ground was given by the appellant for the delay in filing the first appeal.
|
The Commission observed that the second appeal was filed against the order of the FAA dismissing the first appeal being time barred. The CIC rejected the appeal observing that in the absence of any supportive documents to show any sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it will be appropriate to consider that the first appeal was time barred.
Comments
An appellant should be careful about the time limit for filing an appeal to the FAA which is 30 days. Unless there is justifiable reason, the FAA can reject the appeal under the RTI Act
|
Can the information regarding under trial case be disclosed to the accused?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a case in which he was an under trial. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case is pending trial in the Tis Hazari Court and the requisite information could not be provided under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as providing the same would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The First Appellate authority (FAA) upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the appellant is accused in the said case and the case is pending trial so the appellant can obtain the certified copy of the said case from the concerned Tis Hazari Court.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the respondent have not explained how the disclosure of the requested information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The CIC directed the PIO to provide requested information to the appellant.
Comments
It is seen very often that the PIO/ FAA fail to issue a speaking order which becomes unsustainable at the level of the higher judicial fora.
|
Are the audit reports of commercial entities liable to be disclosed under RTI?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information relating to a fraud in a particular branch of the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the audit report of commercial entities was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and hence the information cannot be provided.
|
The Commission observed that the approach taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that no further action in the matter is required.
Comments
A plea of public interest may be sustainable in a few such cases.
|
Should a wife be permitted to inspect the service book of her husband under RTI?
Background:
The appellant was the wife of an Income Tax (IT) Inspector. She filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking to know whether her name had been mentioned as wife in the service book of her husband. She also wanted to know whether her husband had sought permission of the competent authority before a second marriage with another lady. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the appellant that her husband had not mentioned the name of anyone as his wife in the service book and that her husband had not sought permission from the department for the second marriage.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the appellant is legally wedded wife and therefore cannot be treated as third party. The CIC directed the PIO to offer inspection of the service book and other personal records of appellant’s husband to her.
|
CIC directs Department of Revenue to ensure compliance of section 4(2) of the RTI act
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking particulars of the ‘FAQ’ that have been uploaded on the concerned website. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the SDMII (HQ). The SDMII (HQ) provided the reply in respect of some points and for remaining points, the RTI application was further transferred to All Collector of Stamp of Revenue District, New Delhi. The appellant thereafter received replies from different PIOs. Not satisfied with the replies, the appellant filed second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) requesting the Commission to direct the public authorities to display the norms prescribed and required formalities on the notice boards of each SDM Offices, and to provide precise copy of the FAQ.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the purpose of his appeal is to ensure that the Revenue Department puts up all the information related to registration of instruments executed out of India given in section18(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and section 33(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 along with the procedures / documents required to be submitted by the general public to get such documents registered in the SDM’s office etc. The appellant also stated that the said information should be uploaded on their website in pursuance of section 4 of the RTI Act as it was in public interest.
|
The Commission directed the PIO/SDM (HQ) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to consult with the competent authority and place the information sought by the appellant in respect of all 9 Revenue districts, on the website of the public authority. The CIC also held that in case the information or part thereof attracts any exemption clause as given in section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the FAA would not put up that piece of information on the website. In that case the FAA has to formally inform the appellant the reasons for not placing the information on the website. The CIC also issued the show cause notice to the PIO, All Collector of Stamps for not complying with the order of the FAA.
|
Is the National Heart Institute Hospital a charitable organisation?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information relating to National Heart Institute Hospital. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the sought information was related with the third party and he sent notice under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The third party clarified that they are not carrying on any commercial activity and requested the PIO not to disclose any information to the appellant. The PIO denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant wanted to know whether the National Heart Institute Hospital is registered as a charitable hospital or not. He directed the PIO to disclose as to whether the above entity is filing its returns of income as a charitable Trust or not, without disclosing details of the returns filed.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant submitted that he has not received any information from the PIO even after the directions of FAA. He further submitted that a penalty should be imposed on the PIO for failure to provide information. The public authority did not attend the hearing.
|
The Commission observed that the PIO has failed to provide a specific response to the orders of the FAA, thereby showing a complete disregard for the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO for failure to provide a response to the appellant in the wake of the directions of the FAA.
|
Can one of the legal heirs seek information about a joint bank account?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information on a joint account in which her husband was one of the account holders. She wanted to know the details of some withdrawals from the account after her husband’s death and related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that a surviving joint account holder through a lawyer has asked the bank not to divulge information about this account to anyone.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that her husband had passed away and as the legal heir, she wanted to get the name of the person who had withdrawn the sum mentioned in the RTI application and the reason for making the withdrawal as shown in the withdrawal slip. The respondent stated that they denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and they received a letter from an advocate representing the joint account holders that the information was not to be given to anyone. The appellant stated that she had provided various documents to support her right to get the information to the respondent. The respondent stated that there appears to be a family dispute and that it is the relatives of the appellant’s husband who are the joint account holders and the appellant was not an account holder in that account. The respondent also said that the appellant has not provided the succession certificate establishing the appellant as the legal heir. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the account is operated jointly with the mode of operation as any one account holder or survivor. After the death of first account holder, the account will be operated by surviving joint account holders. As if the surviving joint account holders do not give consent, the information cannot be furnished to any other person.
|
The Commission noted that the surviving joint account holder through the lawyer has already requested the branch not to divulge any information regarding the account. The CIC held that the order of the FAA will hold till the appellant establishes herself to be the successor and legal heir in the present context in conformity with the pertinent rules.
|
Should the name of women employee who files a complaint of sexual harassment be disclosed?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway seeking information related to women officials in various Divisions of NW Railway as also action taken on a letter written by him and other employees to the General Manager. He also wanted the names of the women employees who had lodged complaints about being sexually harassed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant once again approached the Commission stating that the decision of the Commission has not been complied with.
Proceedings
During the second hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the number of women employees in the Jaipur Division and the names of 3 women employees who had filed complaints were provided to the appellant. The respondent further stated that the details regarding the name, designation etc. of women employees were not furnished as the same were not available in a compiled form. The respondent also submitted that RTI application was transferred to other divisions by the HQ and that she is not aware whether information has been supplied by them or not to the appellant.
|
The Commission directed the PIO, Jaipur division to allow the appellant to inspect the records pertaining to the details of women staff, so that he can compile the information for himself. The Commission however, held that the copies of the complaints cannot be provided under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act as they are personal in nature and that the disclosure of the information has no relation to any public interest or activity. The Commission also directed the PIO, North Western Railway HQ to transfer the RTI application to all other Divisions of NW Rly along with a copy of this order directing the concerned PIOs to furnish the information.
Comments
The different benches of the CIC are taking different views on identical issues. For a contrary view, please refer tohttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/details-sexual-harassment-complaints-bhu-was-soughThere is a need to maintain harmonious view on the issue and a consistent stand should be taken by the CIC.
|
CIC issues show cause notice to the PIO for providing irrelevant information
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information on issues related to selection of cricket teams in zone no. 28 and the details of Education Officers in all zones under Central District. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the name of the Education Officer, Zone 27 and informed the appellant that the remaining points pertain to sports branch. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO, DDE to provide the details of officers to the applicant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that information was provided to the appellant in compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority.
|
The Commission observed that the information provided by the PIO was totally irrelevant to the information sought by the appellant since the PIO had responded to 10 points whereas the appellant had sought information only against five points in the RTI application. The CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO, DDE for the irresponsible way in which irrelevant information was furnished to the appellant thereby obstructing the supply of information. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete point wise information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application.
|
Can the RTI Act be used to direct the Public Authority to act or not to act in a particular way?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding action taken by the Police on alleged unauthorized construction at forty places within the jurisdiction of various police stations of North East District. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that sincere efforts were made to trace out the addresses but the properties could not be identified due to wrong addresses provided. The PIO also explained that when any construction is carried out, the concerned Civil Agency is informed and it is the duty of the MCD/ Civil Agency to check the construction site as to whether the construction is as per sanctioned plan or otherwise.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per section 466A of DMC Act, unauthorized constructions are a cognizable offence and the CrPC shall apply for the purpose of investigation. The respondent submitted that requisite information has been provided by them to the appellant.
|
The Commission held that the RTI Act could not be used to direct the Public Authority to act or not to act in a particular way. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that only information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;can be provided under the RTI Act.
|
Details of sexual harassment complaints at BHU was sought under RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theBanaras Hindu University (BHU) seeking someinformation relating to details of sexual harassment complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that information in respect of some queries would be provided by Deputy Registrar (RAC) and Member Secretary, Complaints Committee Cell. The PIO also asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 2 /- as photocopying charges for rest of the information. On directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Deputy Registrar provided a response to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that no response has been provided to some of the queries. The Deputy Register submitted that they have not provided the information as it involved disclosure of names of girl students and names of persons against whom complaints have been filed and also quoted CIC decision in this connection.
|
The Commission concurred with the submissions of the Deputy Register regarding non-disclosure of names of girl students and names of persons against whom complaints have been filed. The Commission however, directed the PIO to provide statistical data and guidelines of the University regarding such complaints.
|
Seeking details of educational loan given to students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS from bank
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking information about the students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS who had applied for educational loan. He wanted to know as to how many students were finally selected with amount distributed and how many were rejected along with reasons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the information sought was not available with the Bank in any consolidated form and that it would need to be collected from the various branches of the bank spread all over India. The respondent also informed that collecting such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority [section 7(9)]. The respondent further stated that the bank has acted in accordance with the RTI Act and no further action is required to be done in the matter.
|
The Commission agreed with the response of the respondent and rejected the appeal observing that no intervention is required in the matter.
Comments
On many occasions it has been observed that a public authority tends to collect information when an application is filed to them. This is not required, as depicted in the case above, as per the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
|
Has a particular assessee filed income tax return for a certain period?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems) seeking to know whether a particular assessee had filed his Income Tax Returns (ITR) for certain period, and if not, the action taken by the Department against the defaulter assesse. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it was third party information.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant wanted to know whether a particular assesse has filed income tax returns for certain years or not and is not seeking copies of ITRs filed by the assesse. The CIC held that filing of Income Tax Return is a public duty and it legitimately falls in public domain. The Commission directed the PIO to inform to the appellant as to whether the assesse in question has filed the Income Tax Returns for the impugned years without disclosing any other information.
|
Should appellant seek information on a single issue only through one RTI application?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information regarding proficiency of staff in Hindi in the office of SDM. He also sought information about action taken by SDM in respect of stopping smoking of cigarettes in public places and sealing of factories. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the applicant.
Proceedings
The appellant as well as the respondents did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission adjudicated the matter based on submissions available on record.
|
The Commission observed that the appellant has sought miscellaneous information against queries that do not have any common thread running through them. He has sought 4 categories of information totally unrelated to each other which makes it rather difficult for the PIO to provide easily. The CIC advised the appellant to seek information on a single issue so that the PIO is able to easily furnish the information within the stipulated time period. The Commission also noted that the appellant has not bothered to specify what information is required by him, even while filing the second appeal. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that available information has been furnished to the appellant and that there is no need to authorize disclosure of any further information.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, there is no bar on the number of subjects about which information can be sought by the applicant through one application.
|
List of defaulters of bank and the correspondence regarding settlement reached with them
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking certified copies of various documents in respect of certain branch managers posted in a branch of the bank at Indore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated he had sought information about the list of defaulters and the correspondence which the Public Authority has had in this regard and the settlements reached along with note sheets and legal opinion obtained by the bank. The respondent stated that whatever information was available with them that have been provided. The respondent elaborated that the loans of Rs.5 crores and above are in the public domain in keeping with the banking guidelines. He further stated that the RTI application was vague and lacked specific issues in some of the queries as well it was of the presumptive and hypothetical nature. The appellant stated that the appellant’s invoking the exemption from disclosure clauses is on the basis of wrong interpretation of the law and that he expected the bank to provide complete information on the list of defaulters, correspondence and settlement. The respondent stated that the manner in which the bank addresses NPA issues involve an elaborate decision making process in which the bank uses their understanding to arrive at balanced conclusions on where to press for dues realization and where to go for OTS. The respondent stated that the confidentiality maintained is as per banking norms. The respondent also stated that the responses provided to the appellant are quite detailed and appropriate.
|
The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the reply of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act and there is no need to intervene in the matter.
|
Does the Lok Sabha website contain correct information about the MPs?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking information relating to the composition of the Lok Sabha from the very beginning. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred the appellant to the Lok Sabha website to find out about the details of the composition of each Lok Sabha.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per the advice of the PIO, he visited the Lok Sabha website and found that a lot of wrong information was uploaded there in which the reservation status of the Members of Parliament (MPs) from various constituencies had been wrongly entered. The respondent agreed that there could have been some mistakes which were later corrected.
|
The Commission observed that it is the Election Commission (EC) which is responsible for publishing the final list of MPs elected at the end of an election process against various constituencies including the reserved ones and the PIO should have transferred the request to the Election Commission. The Lok Sabha secretariat has a specific section dedicated to preparing the information about the MPs and publishing it through their website. The Commission held that much time has been already wasted thus the application should not be transferred to the EC now. The CIC directed the PIO, Lok Sabha secretariat to provide a copy of the notifications issued by the EC containing the list of all the candidates elected as MPs from various constituencies for the period such notifications. The Commission observed that if the Lok Sabha website has been updated with all incorrect entries suitably amended, the PIO should also advise the appellant to revisit the Lok Sabha website and find out the details.
|
List of officers working in sensitive posts who have exceeded the stipulated tenure of three years
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Southern Railway seeking information about the officers working in sensitive posts in Chennai Division and who had exceeded the stipulated tenure of three years, thereby violating the directions given by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), from their date of posting in the last seven years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the applicant.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that while furnishing the information, the PIO had withheld the name of one of the official deliberately. The PIO also submitted that FAA had covered up this omission by stating that the name was erroneously left out. The appellant wanted to know whether any other name has been left out erroneously in the same manner. He requested that he should be provided with an affidavit by the Public Authority confirming the fact that name of no other official has been left apart from those furnished to him.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming his position that name of no other official holding a sensitive post and exceeding a tenure of 3 years has been left out.
|
Information about insurance case pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Background:
The appellant’s son had been abducted and killed. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information pertaining to some insurance policies of his son, issued during the period 1996 – 2004. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the case was pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided the documents to the appellant.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the PIO had respond after some delay and has not explained the applicability of the exemption provision invoked by him. A show cause notice was issued to the PIO by the CIC for not having provided information to the appellant within the timeframe prescribed under the RTI Act.
|
Contact details of the office where the work undertaken by the Property Dealers is registered
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Industries seeking the name and contact details of the government office wherein the work that has been undertaken by the Property Dealers is being registered. The RTI application was transferred to PIO, Firms & Societies and also to the ADM HQ O/o the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Firms & Societies stated that the information sought in the RTI application does not pertain to the Firms & Societies office and hence no such information is available in the office. The appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the PIO, Firms & Societies has not given the details of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) because of which he could not file the first appeal.
|
The Commission observed that the appellant is not seeking any information but has grievance that the PIO has failed to provide details of the FAA. The Commission held that not providing details of the FAA by the PIO in his reply would be construed as violation of the provisions under section 7(3)(b) of the RTI Act. The CIC warned the PIO to be more careful while responding to RTI applications. The Commission also noted that no information is available for authorization for disclosure.
Comments
It may happen that the RTI applicant is not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO even though the PIO might have provided all the available information. Therefore, a PIO should always provide the details of the FAA irrespective of whether the information is provided or not.
|
Should government introduce RTI stamps for payment of fee under RTI?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) seeking information pertaining to the resignation of the former Union Finance Minister from the post of Chairman of ISI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the IPO attached with the RTI application to the appellant stating that it was not drawn in favour of ISI and requested to resubmit fresh IPO/DD drawn in favour of Indian Statistical Institute. The appellant filed a complaint under section 18 of RTI Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Proceedings
During the hearing the before the CIC, the appellant objected to the non-acceptance of the IPO by the public authority and stated that as per the rules, the public authorities were bound to accept all IPOs in the name of the accounts officer of the public authority. The appellant further submitted that he has already received the requested information through another RTI application and wishes to close the matter by recommending the CIC, department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Department of Posts, Government of India to examine the proposal to introduce RTI stamps (like revenue stamps) which will remove the harassment to RTI petitioners as well as heavy handling cost on postal orders.
|
The Commission held that they could only forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, DoPT and Secretary, Department of Posts so that the suggestion made by the appellant can be examined.
Comments
Unconfirmed reports have pointed to the fact that the government incurs a cost of nearly Rs 25 to 30 for ensuring that a postal order of Rs 10/- is cleared. A TI stamp or even a regular postal stamp would be a useful alternative mode for the payment of fees.
|
Who has the authority to exclude MPs from the boards of autonomous government institutions?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the details of the governing bodies of the autonomous government institutions to which Members of Parliament (MPs) were nominated by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha. He also wanted to know as to who has the authority to exclude MPs from such boards. He further referred to a particular notification issued by the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals and had wanted to get the copies of the file noting from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in which concurrence had been given for issuing that notification. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information and clarified that they had no information about the authority which could exclude MPs from the boards of any autonomous government institutions. For the query regarding the notification issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the PIO, Rajya Sabha Se retariat transferred the RTI application to the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The PIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals informed the Rajya Sabha secretariat that MPs could not represent on the board of this institution because, as held by the Ministry of Law, it would amount to holding an office of profit.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that since the Chairman, Rajya Sabha nominated MPs to a large number of boards, the decision of any particular ministry not to allow the nominated MPs to act on a particular board under that ministry should have the approval of the Chairman Rajya Sabha and hence this information should be furnished to him. The respondent submitted that they had no information in this regard.
|
The Commission observed that on the requisition of individual ministries, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha nominates MPs to various boards and committees. The information regarding such nomination is available with the Rajya Sabha secretariat but if any ministry decided not to allow the nominated members to function on the board to which they have been nominated, it is that ministry which may have some information about the rationale of its decision. Regarding the notification issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the CIC directed the PIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat to revisit the case and inform to the appellant if any action has been taken by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the intimation received from the Department of Pharmaceuticals and communicate the same to the appelant.
|
Action taken on recommendation for admission in Springdale School
Background:
The appellant claimed that the consultant to the Speaker of Lok Sabha had written a letter to the Principal of the Springdale School recommending admission of two students to that school. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the action taken on that letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no action was required to be taken on that letter.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the said school had taken no action on this. The respondent stated that the Lok Sabha Secretariat had no information on this since there was nothing that it could do in the matter.
|
The Commission observed that a private school was not under any obligation to accede to such recommendations and such recommendations generate hope in the mind of the individual concerned that it would bear fruit and the school would admit the students. The CIC noted that private schools follow their own admission procedure, which is sometimes under the supervision of Superior Courts and therefore, no student can be admitted merely on the recommendation of some high level authority hence such recommendations should be disregarded. The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that there is no information to be disclosed in the case.
Comments
Private schools follow their own admission procedure. Should senior dignitaries write to private institutes to recommend the interest of an individual? Does such an action border on immoral or illegal behaviour?
|
Can CIC conduct the hearing in absence of RTI applicant?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking information concerning the Presidential election which took place in 2012. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Rajya Sabha secretariat provided some information and transferred some of his queries to the Election Commission (EC) of India. The PIO, EC asked the appellant to deposit the photocopying charges so that they could provide the copies of 719 pages of the relevant records. The appellant however, did not deposit any photocopying charges and hence no information was disclosed. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Rajya Sabha Secretariat held that if the appellant was not able to access the website of the Rajya Sabha where a number of information could be found, the PIO could provide him the hardcopy of that information. The appellant did put in any such express request.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant refused to make any submissions demanding that his case could not be explained on telephone. The respondent from EC submitted that it is the EC which is responsible for the Presidential election. The Secretary General of Rajya Sabha had been appointed by the EC as the Returning Officer in the last Presidential election. The respondent also submitted that when the election process completed, the records relating to the election of the President was transferred to the EC for safekeeping and most of the factual information relating to the queries of the appellant were available with the EC.
|
The Commission observed that the cases were mostly heard through video or audio conferencing wherever the parties live outside Delhi and if the appellant wanted to be present in person during the hearing, no body stopped him from appearing before the CIC. The CIC decided to go ahead with the hearing stating that the appellant chose not to appear in person. The Commission held that the PIO, EC had already offered to provide the copies of records to the appellant against payment of photocopying charges and if the appellant is interested in getting the information he should deposit the photocopying charges with the EC and get the copies of the relevant records.
|
Seeking details of MPs charged with rape and murder from the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha secretariat
Background:
The appellant filed two identical applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the details of the present Members of Parliament (MPs) charged with the offence of rape and murder. The Public Information Officers (PIO) informed that no such information was available with them.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that neither the Lok Sabha nor the Rajya Sabha maintained such information about the MPs and also had no knowledge about any other public authority having such information therefore they could not transfer the RTI application elsewhere.
|
The Commission observed that the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats are not maintaining such details about their MPs. The CIC also stated that at the time of the election, the candidates are required to file affidavits listing the criminal cases registered and pending against them and such affidavits are routinely uploaded on the website of Election Commission of India. The CIC advised the appellant to visit the website and see for herself such details about the MPs of the present Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
|
Should the applicants keep in mind the costs involved in compilation of the information?
Background:
The appellant claimed himself to be a RTI activist and filed an elaborate application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission of India seeking huge amount of information pertaining to the elections to the State legislative assemblies in five states during 2012, such as, the pre and post voters list along with the address and the photo ID of each voter in all these five states. He also wanted information regarding the use of EVMs such as whether there is any guarantee that the EVMs could not be manipulated by inserting virus or similar complex destructive programs. He also wanted to know if networking sites like Google.com, Rediff.com, Yahoo.com and Microsoft.com etc. played any role in the Commission's work and if the sites are friends of the Commission. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a lot of information which was readily available in recorded form. He also informed the appellant that the information sought by him was voluminous and had to be compiled and had the potential of disproportionately diverting the resources of the Election Commission [section 7(9)]. The PIO also stated that some of the queries of the appellant such as whether there is any guarantee that the EVMs could not be manipulated by inserting virus or similar complex destructive programs were beyond the purview of the RTI Act being totally impressionistic in nature.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) examined the contents of the RTI application, the reply given by the PIO and the order of the FAA and held that the PIO has already provided the available information. The CIC accepted the contentions of the PIO that some of the information, such as the list of voters along with their photo ID for all the five states which went into polls cannot be provided because of the volumes involved. The Commission observed that such information is already available in the relevant websites. The Commission further observed that this case is an example of how the RTI is being used without any concern for the costs involved in compilation of the information. This also illustrates how a serious right given to the citizens is being reduced to the level of a farce. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the FAA.
Comments
Some RTI applications require considerable patience and skill on the part of the PIO to make out much sense out of most of the so called questions.
|
Is over workload a reasonable cause for delay? Can PIO claim as a ground to escape penalty?
Background:
The appellant filed an application u der the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking copy of the evaluated OMR sheet for the examination in which he had appeared. Even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide information to the appellant. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information and also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the desired information in time. Nearly 14 months after the appellant had filed the RTI application, the information was provided to him.
Proceedings
During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had not been able to provide the information because of the huge volume of work he had to handle during the period being in charge of the confidential branch of the SSC. He explained that this branch dealt with very large number of examination related papers and extracting any specific answer sheet from the pile of documents was very time consuming if not impossible.
|
The Commission observed that the explanation of the PIO was not appropriate. The CIC held that even if it is assumed that the PIO had been making efforts to locate the answer sheet, he should have informed the information seeker about such efforts. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the PIO for the delay in providing the information. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant for the detriment and harassment caused to him.
|
Can PIO respond to RTI application without giving any enclosures?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a particular FIR in which five people were listed as accused. The appellant wanted to know who among the accused were released on anticipatory bail and the names of persons who executed the bail-bonds. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has replied without providing any enclosures. He has not provided information on whether the aforementioned accused persons named in the FIR were granted anticipatory bail nor have they provided the name of persons who executed the bail bonds. The respondent stated that as per record, one person was arrested and released on bail. He also provided the name of the person who had given the surety of accused person. The respondent also stated that the investigation of the case is complete and challan has been filed in the Court and the complete case file is in the Women Court for judicial trial.
|
The Commission observed that the PIO has sent his reply without the enclosure, this action has caused delay in providing information to the appellant. The Commission cautioned the PIO to be more careful while dealing with the RTI matters. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete status regarding bail to the accused of the case.
|
Disciplinary action to be taken against PIO for willful acts of commission and omission
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking some information. On not receiving the information, he filed the first appeal and subsequently the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC directed the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) to provide the information and also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information in time.
Proceedings
During the show cause hearing, the PIO claimed that the original RTI application never reached him and that he came to know about it only after the First Appellate Authority (FAA) sent him a copy of the RTI application along with his order. He also submitted that after receiving the application he had searched for the information stored in the strong room of the SSC and after accessing the information he had provided it to the appellant. The PIO further stated that the FAA had forwarded several queries contained in the RTI application to the other office located in Chandigarh since the matter concerned that regional office but the officer concerned in that office took more than 4 months to write to the appellant. The concerned officer at Chandigarh, explained that did not received the RTI application from the FAA and he came to know about the application only when he received a reminder from the FAA.
|
The Commission observed that the explanation provided by the officer at Chandigarh appears to be an afterthought. It is most unlikely that neither the RTI application nor the order of the FAA forwarding therewith a copy of that application reached the Chandigarh office. The officer concerned is trying to use a clever ploy to avoid the imposition of any penalty by disowning the receipt of the RTI application itself in any manner. The CIC also stated that the communication received from the FAA might have been deliberately misplaced or destroyed to remove any trace of it and such a thing is reprehensible and goes completely against the spirit of the RTI Act. Under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the Chairman of the SSC to institute disciplinary action against the PIO concerned in the Chandigarh office of the SSC for willful acts of commission and omission in the case. The CIC further held that the appellant was deprived of the information for a very long period of time because of complete inaction on the part of the PIO both in the headquarters of the SSC as also in the Chandigarh office. Under section19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act, the CIC also awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant for the detriment and harassment caused to him in the process.
|
Seeking the pit mouth of value of iron ore per tonne from IBM using RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), seeking information regarding the pit mouth of value of iron ore per tonne as declared by the leading iron ore miners in various states since August 2009 to July 2012 on the basis of which the average sale value was arrived at by the Indian Bureau of Mines for payment of ad valorem royalty. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided some information for the period July 2011 to July 2012.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted that there was no reason why the entire information should not have been given to him. The respondent submitted that for the information pertaining to the period before July 2011, no compiled data was available and the information would have to be collated from the voluminous data received from several states. The respondent stated that the entire data was available electronically.
|
The Commission observed that if the data is available in electronic format, it can be copied in a CD and provided to the appellant for him to make sense of it. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a CD containing the entire data as received from the iron ore miners in various states for the months prior to the period for which the information has already been disclosed.
|
Are disciplinary proceedings against an individual liable to be called as personal?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) seeking copy of some enquiry report and copies of several other documents relating to disciplinary action against some officers and employees of GSI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response more than a month beyond the stipulated period and denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Later, the enquiry report was provided to the appellant.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to the Supreme Court order dated 3 October 2012 in the SLP(C) no. 27734 of 2012 (http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) in which it has held that records and documents relating to disciplinary proceedings against a government employee cannot be ordinarily disclosed to any third party this being in the nature of personal information. The Commission rejected the appeal observing there is no further information to be disclosed in the case. The CIC however, imposed the penalty of Rs.7,500/- on the PIO noting that he failed to give any reasonable reason for the delay of more than 30 days.
|
Is the audit report liable to be disclosed to an applicant seeking it under RTI?
Background:
The appellant referred to some audit queries and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Audit and Accountants Department seeking to know whether the said audit queries had been partly or fully dropped and the justification for the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that the audit report was yet to be placed before the Parliament. He also claimed exemption under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the desired information was held in fiduciary capacity.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the audit team had noted many financial irregularities in the functioning of the Coffee Board and pointed out that if the audit inquiries had been dropped then it should be disclosed so that all the facts should come out in the public.
|
The Commission held that the Parliament and the State Legislature has the first right to see the audit report and thus the communications and correspondence exchanged between the audited entity and the AG should not be disclosed until the final audit report is placed before the Parliament or the State Legislature. The CIC observed that the disclosure of the contents of the audit report or the material which can form part of it before it is presented to the Parliament or the State Legislature, may cause a breach of privilege of the Parliament and the State Legislature hence such information was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that once the final audit report is presented to the Parliament or the State Legislature then all the relevant documents including the audit inquiry /draft para and the reply given by the audited entity can be put in the public domain. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information as the entire body of correspondence and communications between the AG and the Coffee Board including all the Annexure and enclosure, if the respective final audit report has already been presented to the Parliament.
|
Can Directorate General of Income Tax deny information regarding complaint of tax evasion?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the DGIT (Investigation) seeking information regarding three complaints filed by him relating to tax evasion committed by certain people. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the Office of Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT) (Investigation) is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act and rejected the request.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not been provided information in respect of the queries raised by him and alleged wrong doing on the part of the Public Authority. The PIO submitted that the Office of DG (Investigation) has been included in the second schedule of the RTI Act as Intelligence and Security organization and excluded from the purview of the RTI Act.
|
The Commission observed that though the Office of DGIT (Investigation) is an exempted organization, a blanket ban on disclosure of information regarding action taken on a tax evasion petition is not the best policy. The CIC held that some sort of feedback should be provided to the person who provides information. The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant of the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details.
|
Should the applicant provide the details of the person about whom information is sought?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking the documents submitted by a particular officer, posted in Special Cell based on which he was appointed in Delhi Police. He also wanted the documents signed by the said officer from the date of employment in Delhi Police till the current date. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi transferred the RTI application to Police Headquarter (PHQ). The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to provide the PIS No., Belt No. and present place of posting of the said officer so that he may provide a proper reply.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant was not present to present his case. The PIO stated that no such officer as submitted by the appellant has been posted since November 2011 nor is presently working in Special Cell and for this reason the appellant was requested to give particulars of that officer in order to locate the person.
|
The Commission observed that appellant’s RTI application has been properly handled by the respondent and if the appellant desired for the information he ought to have provided some particulars to the PIO. The Commission rejected the appeal.
|
Using RTI to deal with the issue of excess fare charged on the train
Background:
The appellant claimed that he was charged with excess fare on from Delhi to Jaipur while travelling in train, although he was only traveling till Rewari. He also alleged that the TTE had demanded Rs.500/- and when the same was refused by him, the TTE issued the excess fare ticket. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Railways seeking copy of the relevant rule that allows the charging of such excess fare. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the applicant to send the IPO in favour of Pay and Account Officer, Railway Board. The applicant then filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that no information has been received despite paying the fee through correct IPO. Vide his second appeal, the appellant submitted that the Railway Board had informed him that the RTI application was sent to North West Railway, but the North West Railway had informed him that the letter was received by them without the RTI application. The Advisor (Freight Marketing) again informed the appellant that the copy of the RTI application is once again being sent to NWR for furnishing requisite information.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been informed that a memo has been issued to the TTE but a copy of the memo has not been supplied to him. He also argued that the information was supplied late. The respondent submitted that the letter did not contain the RTI application and that the same was received later on. Accordingly, the reply was furnished to the appellant within one month of receiving the RTI application.
|
The Commission directed the PIO, North West Railway to provide the copy of the memo to the appellant along with the information on any further action taken against the TTE. Regarding the delay in furnishing of information, the Commission held that they are not in a position to take a decision on the matter since the PIO, North West Railway received only the covering letter and that the RTI application was not enclosed along with the covering letter.
Comments
It is not understood who would deal with the issue of delay if the CIC expresses helplessness.
|
Applicant should specify time period for which information is sought
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the UTI Infrastructure, Technology and Services Limited seeking to know the salary and allowances drawn by his wife. He also wanted the details of the reimbursement of her medical bills and the bill for the education needs of the child. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the sought information was personal in nature.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the salary details of an employee of any public authority must be placed in the public domain as mandated in section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-
(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act. Such details cannot be claimed as personal information and hence are not exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC also held that the total amount of claims reimbursed against the medical bills and the child's education needs should disclosed without giving any further details only if there is any particular time frame for such information. The CIC noted that the appellant has not indicated any timeframe for the information and in the absence of any such reference to any particular period, the PIO cannot be expected to collate such information for the entire service period of the employee concerned. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the salary and allowances drawn by the particular employee for certain period.
|
Issuance of Lal Dora certificate to villagers by Department of Revenue
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue (DoR) seeking information with respect to Lal dora/ Extended Abadi certificate in respect of Nathupura village. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed that the PIO already provided the reply and stated that the said village has been declared as Aabadi vide notification dated 18.11.83 and thus no Lal dora certificate can be issued for this village.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent clarified that no Lal Dora certificate has been issued in the said village after 1983 and therefore copies of such Lal Dora certificates pertaining to the years after 1983 could not be provided to the appellant. The appellant produced some Lal Dora certificates which were issued in year 1990 2001 and 2002 etc. to some individuals and wanted to know whether these certificates were issued legally or otherwise since they have all been issued after 1983. The respondent stated that he is not aware of issuance of any such certificates.
|
Under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act, the Commission remitted the case to the FAA with the direction to enquire into the matter of issuance of Lal Dora certificates as contented by the appellant and to take appropriate action based on the outcome of the enquiry. The CIC also directed the appellant to share copies of the certificates produced with the FAA. The CIC directed the FAA to provide a copy of the enquiry report along with action taken based on the outcome of the enquiry to the appellant.
|
Disconnection of the electricity supply to a temple near RML hospital
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) seeking information on restarting supply of electricity to the Shiva Temple in Kalibari lane. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and stated that the electricity supply to the colony in which the temple is situated was disconnected at the request of DUSIB who in return had received a request from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital for removal of that colony which was next to the hospital. The appellant stated that the NDMC had informed that the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital had requested them to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the Temple and that when he sought information under RTI application from RML Hospital, he was informed that RML Hospital has not written any such letter requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the temple and that they have no problem if the electricity supply to the temple is restored.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had filed a first appeal at the same time as his complaint to the Commission and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the information sought pertains to disconnection of electricity to old Shiva Temple. It was informed that a perusal of the enclosed documents reveals that the issue was earlier dealt with by the Electricity Department and therefore C.E.(E) in his capacity as the FAA should deal with and dispose off the appeal under reference. The appellant argued that the PIO, NDMC has furnished wrong information to him when he stated that the electricity supply to the temple was cut off at the request of RML Hospital.
|
The Commission noted that the appellant has been provided with information but has not been furnished with copies of supporting documents within the mandatory time period. The Commission directed the PIO, NDMC to transfer the RTI application to the concerned PIO, DUSIB along with the direction to provide copy of the letter if received from RML Hospital requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the temple in the said Colony and if no such letter has been received from RML Hospital mentioning the Shiva temple the PIO, DUSIB has to intimate accordingly to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO, NDMC to provide a copy of letter received from DUSIB requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the said Colony; the NDMC Competent Authority’s order directing disconnection of water and electricity supply to the Jhuggi Jhopdi area along with copy of any communication, file notings etc. mentioning the Shiva Temple in particular. The Commission further ruled that the complaint of the appellant that the PIO had deliberately provided wrong information is unjustified since the Shiva Temple is situated right in the middle of the said Colony and there is no reason as to why the temple should be mentioned separately as it is a part of structures in the Colony.
|
Should CAG disclose the special audit report of National Technical Research Organization?
Background:
Referring to some special audit done by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of the office of the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure) seeking some information including the details of the composition of the audit team. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it is related to the NTRO which is an exempted organisation from the operation of the RTI Act under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:and is placed in schedule II.
Proceedings
During the hearing the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO had wrongly interpreted the provisions of section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. He argued that the information provided by an exempted organisation to another Central Government public authority may not be disclosed but the CAG was not a Central Government public authority being an independent Constitutional body. The CAG could not take cover under this provision and deny the information even if it had received the information from the NTRO. He also submitted that the PIO should disclose the information which had been exclusively generated in the office of the CAG. The respondents submitted that the CAG had audited the NTRO as a special case and as per the terms of an agreement between the two organisations, the report of the audit had been provided to the Secretary of the organisation and that it could not disclose the information relating to the special audit to anyone else. The appellant also invoked the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:relating to the violation of human rights and demanded that the information should be disclosed as it related to the violation of his own human rights. He claimed that some newspaper had published certain reports allowing to the special audit and casting aspersions on him thereby causing hurt and humiliation.
|
The Commission observed that the RTI Act excludes certain organisations in a qualified manner and extends the exemption even to the information provided by such organisations to other government ministries and departments and agencies. The Commission ruled that the expression Central Government in section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:includes all public authorities which receive information from the organisations included in the Second Schedule. The CAG cannot be an exception and cannot be expected to disclose the information received from the exempted organisations like the NTRO. The Commission directed the PIO to revisit the relevant records and find out if there is any information which has been exclusively generated by the CAG in respect of the appellant’s queries and provide it. The CIC also ruled that the information provided by the NTRO should not be disclosed.
The CIC further held that just because some newspaper had reported something disparaging about the appellant, it cannot be concluded that the NTRO could be held responsible for it. The allegation of human rights violation contemplated in this particular subsection should be against the exempted organisation. There is nothing to show that the NTRO or the CAG has caused any such violation. The Commission stated that there is no ground for disclosing any such information held or supplied by the NTRO.
|
Can PIO refuse to accept RTI application if higher fee is paid than that prescribed?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Principal Accountant General, West Bengal seeking information relating to the recruitment of multitasking staff. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI application along with the IPO Stating that it was not drawn in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer (Audit) and office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E). The PIO also advised him to reapply along with the appropriate application fee.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they did not entertain the RTI application because the appellant failed to endorse the IPO in favour of the appropriate officer and sent an IPO Rs. 100/- instead of sending only Rs. 10.5/-.
|
The Commission held that the PIO should not have declined to accept the RTI application on such technical grounds as the public authority has not published in advance the exact manner in which the citizens must endorse the IPO. On visiting the website of the public authority, the Commission found that there is no mention of payment of application fee by IPO. The CIC ruled that the appellant cannot be faulted if he had no idea of how to endorse the IPO. The PIO has to provide the information and ask separately the information seeker to deposit the application fee in the appropriate manner. The CIC directed the PIO to bring this to the notice of his superiors in the office so that the departmental website is suitably modified to include the IPO as a way of depositing the application fee. The CIC also advised the appellant to make a fresh application with the appropriate application fee if he is interested in the information.
|
Failure to provide free medical care to EWS patients as per land allotment conditions
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Health Services (DoHS) requesting for inspection of the hospital records related to registration and renewals of hospitals with the Delhi Government and the records related to the Committee formed as per order a particular High Court order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the applicant to visit the DoHS to inspect the file pertaining to the renewals and registrations. He also provided point wise information against the remaining points.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the government agencies have allotted land for hospitals and that the allottees were expected in return to provide free medical care to EWS persons as per land allotment conditions. He requested for information on amounts to be recovered from Private Hospitals in this connection and the reasons for delay in recovery. The respondent explained that after the High Court had pronounced its judgment, the Public Authority had taken action to recover the money from the private hospitals. As part of this process, some Chartered Accountants (CA) have been identified for collecting the relevant information from the Private Hospitals so that the amount to be recovered from each hospital can be calculated. The respondent pointed out that the appellant has already inspected the relevant files and that he is still seeking soft copies of all the records related to private hospitals based on which the recoverable amounts are to be calculated as per Delhi HC decision. The appellant further clarified that he is seeking details of balance sheets submitted by the private hospitals to the CAs so that he can identify the expenses incurred by each hospital for providing free medical care to weaker section.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information regarding the amounts to be recovered from each hospital and calculations in a CD. The CIC however, held that the balance sheets of private hospitals is third party information and directed the PIO to follow the provisions under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and thereafter take a decision on the matter after considering the submissions of third party.
|
When does the property become the “enemy” property?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India seeking information regarding some property belonging to a person who left for Pakistan in 1947. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the office of District Magistrate stating that such information is not available with the office.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as the property is enemy property, the respondent must be in possession of the desired information. The respondent submitted that if a property is qualified to be enemy property only then it is declared as enemy property and the records pertaining to the said RTI application were not with them. The respondent also stated that the application was transferred to the office of District Magistrate and hence the appeal should also have been filed before the FAA for the office of District Magistrate. The appellant stated that the property mentioned in RTI application is related in some way to the property of Sh. Shawas Ali and the appellant can file some documents in relation to the same.
|
The Commission observed that if on perusal of additional documents which the appellant has agreed to submit, the PIO finds that the said property is enemy property, then the PIO should provide a point wise reply to the RTI application.
|
Does DDO of C&AG have powers to punish its employees without a disciplinary process?
Background:
The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General (AG) seeking the copy of rules/ regulations under which the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) can instruct not to make any payment to any particular employee. He also sought the copies of the file noting and orders relating to NTP (a form of punishment). The appellant further sought the copies of the file noting based on which three specific circulars/ office orders had been issued. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the DDO could at his sole discretion implement NTO in order to maintain discipline and decorum. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the NTP was a management tool conventionally used to regulate unauthorized leave, insubordination, recovery of excess payment etc. which was totally the decision of the administrative authority and that it was used as a temporary measure. He also held that the file noting relating to the implementation of NTP in respect of the employees could not be disclosed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The FAA disallowed the disclosure in respect of the file noting based on which three specific circulars/ office orders had been issued.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO and the FAA have contended that there is some form of punishment called NTP which the DDO can inflict on any errant employee to bring him to discipline. The CIC held that the disciplinary rules for Central Government employees including those working in the establishment of the C & AG do not propose any such punishment which the DDO can award to an employee at his sole discretion and there cannot be such an arbitrary provision under which a senior officer can withhold the salary of a subordinate for any length of time without going through the disciplinary process and without giving the employee concerned an opportunity of hearing.
The CIC also observed that since the office of the AG is employing this conventional artifice to discipline the employees they must be having some set of rules, which must be provided to the appellant. The Commission further held that if this particular punishment has been inflicted on many individuals, there must be some order in file. Holding that there would be corresponding file noting in which the competent authority would have approved the issue of such circulars/ orders if any, the CIC directed the PIO to provide all the information to the appellant. The CIC directed to provide the copy of the circulars/ guidelines/ office order authorizing the DDO to order NTP in respect of any employee, the copies of the file noting relating to NTP in respect of specific employees and the relevant notes sheets/file noting leading to the issue of circulars/office orders.
|
Should the PIO calculate the interest payable on late payment of gratuity?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway seeking to know the period for which the interest is payable on the late payment of gratuity to an employee who has been absolved of all the charges and declared not guilty. He also asked about his own case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that interest to him is payable for 21 days and also stated that the applicant has not been fully exonerated from the charges leveled against him.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that factual information has been communicated to the appellant. However, the CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of Rule available on record under which the payment of interest on late payment of gratuity in the cases like the one the appellant has mentioned is made by the public authority.
Comment
Under RTI the PIO should provide the related documents and avoid giving any comments.
|
Seeking information regarding security guards and gunmen employed at BSNL using RTI
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding number of telephone exchanges in the Ghaziabad along with the complete details of Security Guards and Gunmen who were appointed by Security Agencies with their salary detail. The appellant also wanted to know the details of some deductions (ESI, EPF, and DGA) which were being made from the salaries of Security Guards and Gunmen for a certain period with monthly detail. The appellant also sought the details of contractors i.e. the name of owner of the company along with their details of their tender and work order copies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information requested was very voluminous and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence, the appellant can inspect the records and take whatever documents/information he needs. The PIO however denied the information relating to the details of salary allowances deductions under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it is personal information and is related to third parties.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated the same position. He also submitted that the information relating to the number of telephone exchanges, number of security guards, names of the contractors and other readily available information will be furnished.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. The CIC also held that if the appellant wanted to inspect the files he should be permitted to inspect and take photocopies/ extracts there from up to 25 pages. Regarding the details of ESI, EPF & DGA deductions from salary of the security guards, the CIC upheld the decision of the PIO stating that the same were exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and the appellant has not cited any larger public interest to justify their disclosure.
|
Does govt. of India and Maharashtra government follow different rules for appointment in reserved categories?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) Commissioner of Railway Safety seeking information regarding percentage of reservation from Maharashtra List in appointment of Group ‘D” employees to SC/ ST/ OBC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that there is no such provision prescribed by Government of India in this regard. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) clarified that the State Government of Maharashtra List has been followed in all appointments made in the SC/ST/OBC Categories.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that his query regarding percentage of reservation from Maharashtra list has not been replied to by the FAA.
|
The Commission directed the FAA to provide specific information regarding the percentage quota of reservation for SC/ ST/ OBC from Maharashtra list as followed by their office to the appellant.
|
Inspection of records in respect of action taken on the complaint to Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) seeking inspection of records regarding action taken on the complaint against three firms. By notice through their counsel, information was also sought about the company from ICICI bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that no such complaint has been received by them and that no such information exists. He also informed that Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has never ordered any investigation in relation to the affairs of the aforesaid companies. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO and further stated that case investigation/ inspection under section 235, 237 & 239 of the Companies Act 1956 were under progress and provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act get attracted.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, MCA has issued an order and a new team has been constituted and the investigation is being proceeded with. The respondent referred to a previous order of the Commission in the case of Muniraja G Vs. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, SFIO and stated that this case attracts the provision of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.
|
The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that allowing inspection of the files at this stage would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders as the matter is under active consideration/ investigation by the SFIO.
|
Can further fee be charged for taking consent of employees for supplying the information?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information relating to all existing concessional telephone connections and BSNL Broad Band facilities provided to working and retired employees of DoT/BSNL and etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the desired information.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO had demanded an additional fee of Rs. 3375/- for taking consent of 151 employees/ ex-employees @Rs.25/- per employee for supply of information whereas there is no such provision under the RTI Act. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) stated that the appellant had given a particular format for supply of information and that they do not hold the information in the said format and compiling the same would have been very cumbersome and would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority. The APIO admitted that the then PIO had erroneously demanded a fee of Rs.3375/- and the concessions in billing being provided to the employees/ ex-employees were as per extant rules and he would provide the name and the quantum of rebate allowed to each employee along with a copy of circular permitting such rebate.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the name and quantum of rebate being allowed to the employees/ ex-employees in billing (telephone & broadband) along with a copy of the relevant circular permitting such rebate to the appellant. The Commission referred to its earlier full bench decision (order in appeal no. CIC/MA/A/2008/01085) and held that the fees as prescribed under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:and section7(5)Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any other further fee.
|
Are all the zonal offices of LIC supposed to provide same information to the same applicant separately?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with various zonal offices and the head office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information pertaining to expenditure incurred in providing hospitality to the members of the external audit parties by the zonal offices by way of vouchers and the related file notings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the information was not available in the format as requested and that they were not obliged under the RTI Act to expend their scarce resources on compiling and collating information that were scattered in many files.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the expenditure incurred on hospitality offered to the members of the audit parties was part of their entertainment expenditure and other miscellaneous expenditures. The respondent stated that this fall within the powers of the head of office in each of the departments and as no separate head of account/ list of such expenditure is maintained for this expenditure, the same could not be provided to the information seeker. The respondent provided data pertaining to the total income, net total income and total management expenses along with the entertainment expense ratio and miscellaneous expenses ratio for the certain years which is less than 0.04% of the total income. The respondent further submitted that the expenses incurred on the audit and inspection teams were nominal and also within the sanctioned budget by the competent authority and were petty in nature.
|
The Commission, in the larger context of transparency in public expenditure where certain amount of discretion is inbuilt, directed the appellant to identify any one of the offices at which he wishes to inspect the documents pertaining to the issue of his RTI application and identifies the same to the PIO, Head office. The CIC also directed the PIO to then fix a mutually convenient date and time within 2 weeks thereafter on which the appellant can visit the said office at his own expense and inspect the documents for two hours, free of cost. The Commission also directed that prior to the inspection, the identified office will flag all the vouchers pertaining to the expenditure on the audit and inspection party for last one year. This procedure will minimise the cost of 'collecting and collating' information to the public authority and will also meet the appellant's ultimate goal of suitably highlighting this matter so that in future all concerned will take adequate care to keep this expenditure at a reasonable level.
|
Is MTNL supposed to provide the records of incoming STD calls?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking incoming and outgoing STD Call details of a particular number. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the details of the outgoing STD calls and intimated that no details of incoming calls are maintained unless the telephone is kept under observation.
|
The Commission rejected the appeal observing that as no records were available with the respondent regarding the incoming STD calls the same could not be furnished.
|
Blank postal order – Does an application filed under RTI become invalid?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the postal order sent by the appellant with the RTI application stating that the name of the payee had not been mentioned therein.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the postal order becomes a valid instrument only when it is made payable to a particular payee and that an application for information under the RTI Act becomes valid only when it is accompanied by a valid postal order. The CIC held that as the postal order did not contain the name of the payee hence the RTI Act cannot be said to have come into operation. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the grievance of the appellant is misconceived.
Comment
Readers may like to refer to another case in which a different view was taken by the Commission.
|
Should PIO speculate about the exact information that the information seeker needs?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking varied information like the Transfer of Power documents; the documents entered between the Government of India and the UK in 1947; the status of the British Queen in India; the status of India in the Commonwealth of Nations etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought spans over a very long period of time and seeks to elicit information generally covering the entire transaction between the British and newly independent Government of India relating to its independence. The CIC held that the information seeker has to specify the information according to section 6(1) of the RTI Act and it is not for the PIO to speculate about the exact information that the information seeker needs. Accepting the contentions of the PIO that some of the information is not held centrally in a compiled form in the manner in which it has been sought and that collating the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Ministry, the CIC observed that the appellant has not clarified as to why he finds the information provided by the PIO deficient or incomplete. In the absence of any such clarity, it was not sure what additional information needs to be disclosed. The Commission advised the appellant that if he has any specific information in his mind, he should approach the PIO again clearly stating the information he needs.
The CIC also held that the query like what is the status of the British Queen in India is not only vague and does not yield any readymade information but is clearly outside the purview of the RTI Act. The Commission ruled that for the purpose of RTI, information denotes only an existing material record; it does not refer to any information or record to be created only to satisfy the immediate demand of the information seeker. The CIC rejected the appeal observing that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case.
|
Is restructuring of revenue districts a reasonable cause for delay?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information on action taken on his application regarding mutation of khasra in the Revenue estate of Village Massodpur in favour of the actual owners/ proprietors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that he has brought the information with him to the hearing and with the permission of the Commission handed over the same to the appellant. The Commission directed the appellant to review the information provided by the respondent during the hearing and to inform the PIO about any missing information that is still to be supplied to him. It was further directed that the PIO should furnish the information, if available on record. The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause as to why penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory period and for not complying with the order of the FAA.
Proceedings
During the show- cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had not raised any further objection to the information provided during the first hearing, it reflects that information desired by the appellant had been provided to him. The respondent also submitted that that due to restructuring of revenue districts at that time, the information desired by the appellant was not readily available, which caused the delay. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant was mostly based on why, when where, whether and the reply of the same could not be provided under the RTI Act.
|
The Commission observed that ‘restructuring’ of revenue districts was carried out in the month of September, 2012 that is much later to the date of the appellant’s RTI application and the date of the order of the FAA. Thus, the explanation provided by the respondent is not acceptable and the same cannot be construed as ‘reasonable cause’ for not responding to the appellant. The CIC ruled that the PIO is a statutory authority under the RTI Act who is duty bound to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, especially the time limit, which is the key element in the RTI Act. The PIO could have provided an interim reply to the appellant which he did not and had thus failed to discharge his statutory duty. Further, the defiance of the order of the FAA by the PIO is highly objectionable.
Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the PIO holding that the PIO has delayed/obstructed the supply of information to the appellant without any reasonable cause.
|
Disciplinary action recommended by CIC against the PIO for not following their orders
Background:
The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) seeking information regarding the third party such as the official relationship of the third party with his employer; name of his wife and children; their medical history and details of property against which house building advance was taken by the third party etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information pertaining to the official relationship of the third party with his employer. However, under section 8(1)(j), the PIO denied the personal details like the name of the wife and children; their medical history and details of property against which house building advance was taken by the third party. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant against which the re-approached the Commission.
|
The Commission denied the disclosure of the information sought by the appellant stating that the Commission does not have the power to review its own decision and no new grounds have been brought forth by the appellant which could perhaps merit such reconsideration.
The CIC, however, observed that the conduct of the PIO in this entire matter was unacceptable. The Commission had directed the PIO to bring before the Commission the record held by the public authority pertaining to the marital status and family composition of the third party. The PIO appeared before the Commission and presented an unattested photocopy of letter addressed to the public authority and signed by the third party pertaining to his marital status and did not bring before the Commission the complete original records in this regard. The Commission chided him for this disregard and wilful disobedience of the Commission’s directions given to him under Rule 11(ii) and Rule 11(iii) of RTI Rules, 2012 and directed the PIO to appear once again before the Commission along with the full and complete record. However after the hearing the PIO took these documents presented before the Commission with him. Subsequently, when this was discovered, the PIO was asked by the registry of the Commission to fax a copy of the very same letter. While acting on this direction, the PIO chose to convey slanted information to the third party who feared the disclosure of his personal information even prior to any decision of the Commission. The Commission held that such actions can only be described as 'mischievous' and unbecoming of a public servant. Under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the Act, the CIC recommended disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO under the service rules applicable to him.
|
Are the details of income and assets of a person liable to be disclosed to his wife?
Background:
The appellant’s divorce proceedings were in process and the issue of and maintenance to be given by her husband was to be decided. In this relation she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information regarding her husband’s monthly salary details, personal assets/ property details, Bank investments/savings and other sources of income. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the third party had objected to disclosure of information stating that it was personal information and that litigation was pending between him and his wife and as such disclosure of information was being sought with intention to harm him. The PIO denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the information was held by the department in fiduciary capacity and was personal in nature.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, to support his contentions. (Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) The appellant submitted that the matter regarding finalization of her maintenance was pending in a court of law and she wanted to know the financial status of her husband.
|
The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal.
|
Can the Central Information Commission decide the cases related to the State government?
Background:
Referring to the newspaper advertisements that the Delhi Police has to mandatorily register an FIR in all cases of written complaint made for cognizable offences and provide a copy of FIR to the complainant free of cost, the appellant sought a certified copy of such an order. He sought the present status of his written complaint dated 15.2.2008 filed against officials of Indian Navy and Air Force for alleged illegal confinement and torture. He further wanted to know the reasons if the FIR was not registered for his written complaint in respect of cognizable offences. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the requisite information was a query and does not fall under the category of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. However, he advised the appellant to consult law books for detail as his complaint was still pending enquiry. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that his complaint was pending enquiry and the same has now been sent to the Commanding Officer, Naval Headquarters for necessary action as the matter pertained to their department.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant filed another identical RTI application which was transferred to the state police department as the matter belonged to them.
|
The Commission observed that the appellant has been adequately replied to by the PIO and the CIC has no jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to the State Governments. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the concerned SIC in this regard.
|
Should AG maintain list of pensioners - department or designation wise?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General (AG) seeking the list of pensioners of the Agriculture Department of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir who retired and were affected by a particular government order issued on 31 January, 2010. He specifically wanted to know the amount of gratuity payable in each case and the amount withheld. He also requested for a copy of the order of the competent authority by which some amount of the gratuity had been withheld. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that they did not maintain the list of pensioners department wise or designation wise nor against any specific government orders and therefore it was not possible for the PIO to provide any such list except by collecting such information from various other public authorities.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained that the information had been sent to him in several installments and was not complete. The respondent submitted that they did not have any readymade list of such officers with them and could provide the information only if the list of the officers is provided to them by the appellant.
|
The Commission observed that the office of the AG does not maintain lists of pensioners either on the basis of their department or their designation and they do not have information on how many pensioners had been affected by which government order. The CIC held that in such cases the appellant should assist the PIO by providing the list of officers by obtaining the same from the state government authorities so that the PIO can then provide the other details. The omission ruled that the appellant had already provided a long list of pensioners to the PIO and in turn the PIO had also provided the desired information. The CIC further held that if there is any other names which have been left out the appellant should send those names to the PIO so that the PIO would forward the desired details to him.
|
Can students’ assessment of a Professor be disclosed to a RTI applicant?
Background:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Pondicherry University seeking information regarding selection of lecturers in the Department of Performing Arts, Pondicherry University through an interview. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.
Proceedings
During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contented that the PIO wrongly informed him that two persons (who qualified the selection) are Ph.D qualified whereas they were not Ph.D qualified at the time of the selection. The appellant also submitted that his query whether the candidates have completed Ph.D in English medium has not been replied to by the PIO. The respondent informed that these two candidates were NET qualified candidates and were yet to be awarded Ph.D degree. The PIO stated in their biodata it was mentioned that they have submitted their Ph.D thesis and are awaiting award of degree. The respondent further submitted that copy of the students’ assessment of a particular Professor, School of Performing Arts was denied as it was the personal information of third party and covered under the provisions of section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act.
|
The Commission directed the PIO to provide the full clarification to the appellant on the subject of Ph.D degrees of the two aforesaid candidates and also to inform whether the candidates have completed Ph.D in English medium or through any other medium.
|
Is submission of details for issue of passport a public activity?
Background:
Three individuals filed separate applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Passport Office seeking information regarding third party passport holders like the copies of their passport applications and their travel details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that the information was personal in nature and is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
|
The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal.
Comments
The travel details of an individual and the details furnished by a citizen for getting a passport contain a lot of personal information. Just because it is used for issuing an official document does not mean that it has a relation to a public activity or public interest. The disclosure of such information has a potential of causing unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the passport holder and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure until it serves larger public interest.
|
Status of pensioners drawing maximum pension under the 6th pay commission
Background:
The appellant referred to a particular letter the reply of which was sent by the Accountant General (AG) to the Finance Department of the State Government. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the AG seeking copy of the reply and whether AG had consulted the Ministry of PG and Pensions before replying to the State Government. He also wanted to know if the pensioners drawing the maximum pension under the 5th pay commission would continue to draw the maximum pension under the 6th pay commission. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided him with a copy of the letter they had sent in response to the communication from the State Government. He also clarified that they had not consulted the Ministry of PG and Pensions. The PIO further stated that they had no information regarding the entitlement of the pension.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant demanded that the reply given by the AG to the Principal Secretary, Finance should be revised because it did not disclose that the maximum pensioners under the previous pay commission had been granted maximum pension under the 6thpay commission also. The respondent pointed out that they can only provide the information which existed in material form and cannot invent some new information just because the appellant wanted it. The respondent also stated that the reply given by the AG to the Principal Secretary, Finance and State Government of Kerala had no other record to support the demand of the appellant.
|
The Commission observed that the PIO had provided a copy of the letter and if the appellant finds that the contents of that letter are incorrect then he can challenge it in any other appropriate forum like a court of law. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the appellant cannot expect the PIO or the public authority to revise or modify an existing piece of information in order to suit his requirement, under the RTI Act.
|
Reasonable causes for delay can safeguard the PIO from penalty
Background:
The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO), Estate Office, UT Chandigarh for delay in providing the information. During the hearing of the show cause notice, the PIO submitted that special efforts were made to collect the information sought by the appellant as it was not readily available. The building plans of the school were required to be checked by the field staff as the school authorities were making claims that they had submitted building plans. Therefore, in order to avoid legal implications at any stage, the field staff had to make sure that no wrong action is taken. The PIO submitted that all of this exercise resulted in delay in furnishing the information to the appellant.
|
The CIC perused the copies of the communication signed by the Estate Officer and addressed to the Finance Secretary and Administrator stating that the department is working with only half of the staff which was sanctioned in 1960s – 70s when in fact the work load had since increased hugely. The Commission accepted the explanation of the PIO and dropped the penalty proceedings.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.