PSIC

PUNJAB STATE INFORMATION

COMMISSION

INTERNSHIP APPRAISAL
REPORT
(Period: 1st September- 21st September 2021)

Submitted To- Submitted By-

Sh. Suresh Arora Lakshay Goel (5TH Year UILS, PU)

Chief Information Commissioner Aditya (2ND Year HPNLU, Shimla)

PSIC FM Pranavi (2ND Year HPNLU, Shimla)

1 | Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The internship opportunity we had with Punjab State Information Commission was great
chance for learning the practical and understanding the basic concepts of Right to
Information Act 2005.

We the law students were very grateful to be a part of this commission and had met many
wonderful and experienced people who guided us during entire internship period of us.

We express our deepest gratitude and special thanks to the Hon’ble Chief Information
Commissioner Shri Suresh Arora Sir, and various other Hon’ble State Information
Commissioners in the commission for allowing us to see and have the practical experience
about the exact working of RTI proceedings which helps us to have better understanding of
RTI Act. We were highly obliged and blessed that all the Hon’ble Commissioners answered

all our queries and doubts regarding the Right to Information Act.

We would also like to appreciate the sincere efforts of all the Personnel Staff to all the
Commissioners which helped us in every possible manner and told us various things related
to working of commission and they had provided us the friendly and healthy environment to
us during entire internship tenure.

Lakshay Goel (Panjab University)

Aditya (H P National Law University)
FM Pranavi (H P National Law University).

2 | Page
 INDEX

3 | Page
 INTRODUCTION TO RTI ACT, 2005

“Information is the seed for an idea and only grows when it’s watered”

– Heinz V. Bergen

In modern democracies, citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government

and its policies aimed at their welfare. In a democratic government of the people, by the

people and for the people, the foundation of a healthy democracy lies in well-informed

citizens. Enlightened and informed citizens enhance the democratic values of a country. The

right to information in a democratic set up is recognized all over the world and it is a natural

right flowing from the very concept of democracy.

The date of 12th October 2005 shall be remembered as a new era of empowerment for

the common man in India. This law was passed by Parliament on 15th June 2005 and came

fully into force on 12th October 2005. Information disclosure in India was restricted by

the draconian Official Secrets Act 19231 and various other special laws, which the new RTI

Act now relaxes.

Right to information Act was enacted to provide for legal right to information for citizens to

secure access to information under the control of the public authorities, to promote

transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. To ensure

smoother, greater, and more effective access to information and provide an effective

framework for the effectuating the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the

Constitution, the RTI Act passed by the Parliament in 2005.

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_(India)#:~:text=The%20Official%20Secrets%20Act
%201923,against%20India%20are%20strongly%20condemned.

4 | Page
Undoubtedly, the RTI raises the awareness of the public about government functioning and

promotes human rights. In a fast-developing country like India, availability of information

regarding functioning of public organizations needs to be promoted further. Now that India

has a legislation for RTI, it can be made more beneficial by its effective implementation

leading to improved public administration for the betterment of the people. This is possible

only through the government's bringing down of its iron curtains as well as people's active

involvement in this process.

It has rightly been observed by Henry Clay that the government is a trust, and the officers

of the government are trustees and both the trust, and the trustees are created for the

benefit of the people.

As every coin has two sides, one is useful and other is flipside which is not useful but

misused by the people. Same is the case with the RTI Act too. As the law doesn’t enquire

about the purpose of the information which is shared with people, which way it is used and

what are the purpose of information2.

Thus, the Right to Information Act is a codification of the important fundamental

right (Article 19) of citizens. The Act and its rules define a format for requisitioning

information, a time within which information must be provided, the method of giving the

information, some charges for applying, and list of organizations exempted from giving

information.

● Objective of RTI ACT- The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to

empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the

Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real

sense. It goes without saying that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep
2 Anil kumar jain, RIGHT TO INFORMATION -USE AND MISUSE, available at
http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=54&do_pdf=1&id=2039.
Lovekesh Jain, The Information Gleaner, p. 03(New Century publication, 2010)

5 | Page
 necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more

accountable to the governed. The Act is a big step towards making the citizens

informed about the activities of the Government.

To promote openness, transparency, and accountability in public administration, it is

required that every citizen has a right to information under the control of public authorities.

No democratic government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of

accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of their

government3.

● The Scenario of RTI Act in India- The struggle for RTI can be traced back to the

protests by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) led by Ms. Aruna Roy 4

and others who demanded the right to inspect files related to expenditure of

development funds. Various slogans such as “Our money, our account “and “The

Right to Know, the Right to Live” were coined.

The Constitution of India does not explicitly guarantee Right to Information. However, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court via multiple judgements has held that right to information is implicit

in the constitutionally enshrined Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article

19(1)(a)] and Right to Life and Liberty [Article 21] supported by Right to Constitutional

Remedies.

It is the dynamic interpretation of these laws and articles that has led to the development of

the Rule of Law in India. However, the absence of any clear legislation on the Right to

Information forced the citizen to constantly knock the doors of the courts. While the courts,

responded positively, approaching the courts for infringement of every right became a highly

cumbersome process for a common man who did not have the means or the time to do the

3 Available at, https://rti.gov.in/

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdoor_Kisan_Shakti_Sangathan

6 | Page
same frequently. It was in 1993, that the Consumer Education and Research Council

(CERC), Ahmedabad proposed a draft RTI Law5.

As laid down in Phairembam Sudesh Singh v. The State of Manipur and Ors 6, the RTI

Act, 2005 is enacted with the avowed objective of conferring a statutory right on the citizens

in India to have access to Government-controlled information or to seek information from

Central Government/State Governments, local bodies, and other competent authorities as a

matter of right. The idea is that it would prove to be instrumental in bringing in transparency

and accountability in Government and Public Institutions which would help in bringing the

growth of corruption in check.

RTI is often said to be the Oxygen of Democracy, giving meaning to and strengthening

participatory democracy. Marginalised groups are often given a voice and tool to scrutinise

PhairembamSudesh Singh v. The State of Manipur and Ors W.P. (C) No. 642 of 2015,

on 2nd February 2016. Therefore, we cannot question the importance of the Act in today’s

era.

The first landmark pronouncement in this respect was made by Justice Mathew in State of

Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain7 wherein he stated, “In a government of responsibility like

ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be

but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything

that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the

particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is

derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should

make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no

repercussion on public security”

5 https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm
6 W.P. (C) No. 642 of 2015 Decided On: 02.02.2016
7 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333

7 | Page
Right to Information is also recognized all over the world through various Acts and

provisions. In Australia, for instance, the Freedom of Information Act, 1982 8, requires

that agencies respond within 30 days to information request. There are, however, several

exemptions, including documents relating to national security, defence, or relationship

between states. Amongst the Common Law Nations, USA has a much better tradition for

open government than any other country. The USA constitution does not contain any specific

provision for access to administrative approved documents but such a right has been

conferred by statutes. There are certain exemptions here too such as personnel and medical

information or trade secrets and commercial information.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF RTI

ACT WITH CASE LAWS

8 www.health.gov.au/about-us/corporate-reporting/freedom-of-information

8 | Page
 1. Section 3 (RIGHT TO INFORMATION)- Section 3 of the Right to Information Act
gives the right to all Indian citizens to access information from the public authorities.
A citizen under the Act means only natural and not juristic persons like firms,
companies, or other corporate bodies. In addition, a citizen need not give reasons for
asking for a particular information from any public authority and the public
information officer (PIO), or the public authority cannot question the applicant under
the RTI Act as to why he/she needs the information. Even if more than one person
seeks the same kind of information it should be made available to all the requesters by
the PIOs.

The citizen has also been given the right to ask for information, which has been
already, disclosed as per the self-disclosure requirements of the Act (Section 4). It
must be provided to a citizen who applies for such information from a public
authority.

● Only persons in individual capacity can apply for information under RTI
Act [Sec. 3 of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Inder Grover vs. Ministry of Railways9, the applicant had
applied for some information to the PIO of the Railways Ministry in the capacity as the
Managing Director of a company.
Judgment: The CIC interpreted Section 3 of the RTI Act to hold that persons applying for
information under the Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens).
Corporate bodies and juristic persons cannot apply for information under the Act. It was
accordingly ruled that if a person applies for information to a public authority as a
representative of a corporate body, then he/she is not entitled to information under the Act.
● Firm cannot be an applicant under the RTI Act [Sec. 3 of the RTI Act,
2005]
CASE LAW- In the case of D.C. Dhareva & Co. vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants
of India10, a corporate body (company), had applied for information from a public authority
and sought certain documents relating to another firm which had submitted this information
to the public authority as per the legal requirements of furnishing such information.
Judgment: It was held by the Commission in this case that since the appellant organisation is
a corporate body and not an individual it is not eligible to seek information under Section 3 of
the RTI Act.

2. Section 4 (OBLIGATION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES)- The RTI Act not only

requires governments to provide information upon request, but it also imposes a duty
on public authorities to actively disclose, disseminate and publish information, as

9 CIC/OK/A/2006/00121, dated 27/06/2006

10 Decision No.560/IC/2007, dated 22/2/2007

9 | Page
 widely as possible. The RTI 2005 also requires all public authorities covered under
the law to publish Suo motu or proactively a wide range of information on their own,
even if no one has specifically requested it. Section 4 of the Right to Information Act,
2005, requires all the public authorities to routinely publish 17 categories of
information. This provision clearly specifies that all public authorities must make
constant efforts to provide as much information Suo motu to the public, at regular
intervals, through various means including the Internet, so that the public have
minimum need to use this Act to obtain information. In addition, self-disclosure by
the public authorities should be disseminated with considerations about the local
language, cost-effectiveness, and the most effective means of communication, so that
it reaches large sections of citizens. This ensures that citizens always have access to
authentic, useful, and relevant information.

This is a key provision because it recognises that some information is so useful and
important to the community at large, that it should be given out regularly, without
anyone specifically requesting it. Self-disclosure enables promotion of transparency
and accountability in governance and reduces the demand for information by the
citizens from public authorities, as most of the important information is available in
the public domain.

CASE LAW- In the case of Madan Lal Mirg v. Dinesh Singh11, the applicant had asked for
certain information from the records of the public authority and obtained all the information
so asked. The applicant again filed an RTI application with this public authority and asked
several questions and opinions so that he could use them to build a case which he could file in
a court of law. CIC dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the information sought by the
appellant does not qualify for disclosure as per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, and it is not
the intention of this provision to provide an applicant with opinions or suggestions, which can
be used to build case in a court of law, for an applicant. The Commission held that the
information sought should be clearly information within the scope of Section 4(1)(d) of the
RTI Act, 2005.

3. Section 6 (REQUEST FOR OBTAINING IN FORMATION)- A citizen shall

submit the application for obtaining the information to a PIO or assistant PIO of the
public authority. The application should be submitted to the PIO of the public
authority under whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the application falls. When an
application is submitted to a public authority for information, which is held by another
public authority, then the public authority to which the application has been made is
under duty to transfer the application to the public authority, which has the
information.

11 F.No.CIC/AT/2006/00105, dated 30/6/06

10 | Page
 If a citizen asks for certain information, which is with three or four public authorities,
then the PIO of the first public authority shall provide the information of the part,
which lies in his subject jurisdiction, then transfer the other parts to the PIOs of the
relevant public authorities. While transferring the application’s parts, he should be
careful in identifying the public authorities based on the application’s subject matter.

If the application is to be transferred to another public authority, the public authority

to which the application is made shall transfer the application to the other public
authority within five days of the receipt of the application. As soon as the PIO of a
public authority transfers the application to another public authority, then he should
immediately inform the applicant about such a transfer.

The application procedure for seeking the information is very simple and citizen-
friendly (Section 6 of the RTI Act). The application can be written in English or Hindi
or the state’s official language. Oral requests shall be reduced in writing with the
assistance of the PIO, if the applicant is not literate. The applicant must clearly
specify the information, which he is seeking. Last but not the least, the application
should be accompanied by the necessary application fees as prescribed under the
respective state rules. In many states, it can be paid in the form of cash/demand
draft/postal order/treasury challan /non-judicial stamp, etc.

The application can be made on a plain paper, and there is no prescribed form or
format for writing it. The applicant is not required to give any reasons for requesting
the information; he is only required to give his contact details/addresses, so that the
information sought can be sent to him by the PIO.

CASE LAW- In the case of Madhu Bhaduri vs. Director, DDA12, the applicant wanted
some information from the Delhi Development Authority (a public authority). She was,
however, asked by the authority to apply for the information asked in a particular proforma,
prescribed by the authority. She was also asked to provide the reasons for applying for the
information from the public authority.
Judgment: The Commission, interpreting Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, held that any
direction to prescribe a particular format for seeking information cannot be mandatory and
override the requirement of a simple application, as laid down in this section. The
Commission ordered the public authority to provide her with the information asked. It was
also held that asking the reasons for filing the applications is a clear violation of the principle
embodied in Section 6(2) of the Act. It was, however, observed by the Commission, that
retention of a clause in the rules of the public authority for asking reasons may be permitted if
such a clause is necessary to ensure privacy under Section 8(j), as also the interest of a third
party under Section 11(1) of the Act.

12 Complaint No. CIC/C/1/2006, dated 16/1/06

11 | Page
 4. Section 7 (DISPOSAL OF REQUEST)- The RTI Act clearly sets the time limit for
the disposal of requests by the PIOs so that the citizens do not have to run around the
public authorities for information endlessly. It is important for the applicants to know
the time limits for different categories of information, the method by which the time
limit is calculated by a PIO, and the requirement of payment of additional fees, so that
the applicant can easily get the information he/she requires.

Under Section 7 of the Act, information must be provided to the citizens within 30
days of receipt of the application by the PIOs. But if the information relates to life and
liberty of a person, then the PIOs must provide the information within 48 hours.
Citizens also have the option of submitting the application for information to an
assistant PIO, who shall transfer the application within five days of its receipt to the
PIOs. If the PIO decides to provide the information, then he shall send intimation to
the applicant clearly specifying the details of further fees (xerox, cost of
sample/printed material/inspection fees, etc), which is to be paid for obtaining the
information. He should also inform the applicant about the date and time when the
information can be collected by the applicant after the payment of fees.

● Information to be provided free if there is delay/reimbursement to be

provided in cases of delay. [Sec.7 (6); Sec. 19(8)(b) & Sec. 20(1) of the RTI
Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Gita Dewan Verma vs. Urban Development Department,
Delhi13, the applicant had applied for certain information regarding slum clearance from the
Urban Development Department of the Delhi Government. She was not provided any
information within the maximum time limit, as the public authority could not ascertain the
information which was asked by the applicant.
Judgment: The CIC held that since there was a delay in replying to the information sought,
the appellant should be provided information without costs as per the stipulation under
Section 7(6), as there was delay in providing the information. In the above case, the appellant
was held entitled to reimbursement under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act. The CIC in this case
also issued a show cause notice to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) as to why the
penalties prescribed under Section 20(1) of the Act be not imposed on him.
● Information concerning life and liberty [Sec. 7(1) of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Shekhar Singh and others vs. Prime Minister’s Office 14, the
appellants had applied for information about the recommendations of the Group of Ministers
for the rehabilitation of the project affected persons of the Narmada Project, 1 according to
the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act. Section 7(1) deals with
providing information within 48 hours in the case where there is a threat to life and liberty of
a person/s. The applicants contended that there is an immediate threat as the protestors were
on an indefinite hunger strike.
13 Appeal No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00182, dated 29/6/2006
14 Decision No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00066, dated 19/4/2006

12 | Page
Judgment: The report of the ministers which was made public was supplied to the
applicants. The Commission, however, held that for an application to be treated as one
concerning life and liberty under Section 7(1), it must be accompanied with substantive
evidence that a threat to life and liberty exists. In the present case, the Commission rejected
the application under Section 7(1). However, the Commission held that agitation with the use
of ahimsa must be recognised as a bonafide form of protest, and therefore even if the claim of
concern for life and liberty is not accepted, in a particular case by the public authority, the
reasons for not doing so must be given in writing in disposing the application.

5. Section 8 (EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION)- The

Right to Information Act does not provide access to citizens to all kinds of
information held by the public authorities. Some exemptions from the disclosure of
information have been provided in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act; categories of
information listed in this section can be denied to the citizens by the PIOs. Citizens
must also know the provisions of Section 8 and the related judgments already listed in
this section, so that they do not waste their and the PIOs’ time, it is mandatory for the
PIOs to know this provision and develop a clear understanding of it, so that any denial
of requested information by him clearly falls within the scope of Section 8(1). The
PIOs must also know that mere quoting of a clause of Section 8(1) is not sufficient; it
should be backed by reasonable justification.

The PIO of a public authority can deny the following categories of information under
the Act:

• Information whose disclosure will affect the security and integrity of India.
• Information barred from disclosure by a court.
• Information, whose disclosure would be a breach of privileges of the
Parliament/Assembly.
• Information relating to commercial secrets.
• Information, which is available to a person due to a special relationship of trust
(fiduciary relationship).
• Confidential information obtained from foreign governments.
• Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety of
a person.
• Information, which would affect the process of investigation.
• Records of meetings of cabinet (council of ministers).
• Personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
interest.

13 | Page
 However, a PIO may allow access to information to the applicants despite the above
exemptions provided in Section 8(1), if public interest in providing the information is
greater than the harm done in private interest. Thus, the PIOs, while dealing with
requests for information must always remember that public interest shall outweigh
private interest in the disclosure of information, and that disclosure of information is
the rule and denial of information is an exception.

● Information on ongoing investigation [Secs. 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI

Act]
CASE LAW: In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Jt. Commissioner, Police 15,
the applicant had sought details regarding the progress of an investigation of a case by the
police.
Judgment: The CIC dismissed the appeal relating to the disclosure of information. It ruled
that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted,
according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h), of the RTI Act. It is justified not
to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been
completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process, the
Commission held.

● Disclosure of marks secured [Secs. 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act]

CASE LAW- In Neeraj Kumar Singhal vs. Northwest Railway, Jaipur 16, the applicant
had asked for copies of marksheets and answer sheets of the candidates who were declared
successful in the examination conducted by the Railways (a public authority). The public
authority, however, did not provide him with information saying it could not be provided, to
the candidates.
Judgment: The CIC held that in case of competitive examinations, conducted by public
authorities, the answer sheets could not be provided to the candidates as per Sections 8(1)(e)
and (8)(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, however, held that the marks secured by the
candidates are not to be kept secret, and should be furnished to the candidate. It was further
held that the disclosure of marks is not against the provisions for exemption of disclosure of
information under Sections 8(1)(e) of the Act, and therefore such information should be
disclosed to an applicant.
● Information no longer available in records cannot be given [Sec. 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of T.V. Varghese vs. B.S.N.L.17, the appellant in the application
addressed to the PIO of the public authority, B.S.N.L, asked for certain information relating
to the list of candidates who qualified for the positions of Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs),
15 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30/6/2006
16 Appeal No.11/53/2006-CIC, dated 2/5/2006
17 Appeal No.251/ICPB/2006, dated 2/1/2007

14 | Page
during the years 1992 to 1998, and the marks obtained by each of the successful candidates.
The Appellate Authority of the public authority informed the appellant that the information
asked for all the years can be given to the applicant, except for the year 1992, as it was not
available with the concerned public authority, due to departmental rules relating to the expiry
of the period of preservation.
Judgment: The CIC held that when the records are not available due to the expiry of the
period of preservation according to the departmental rules for destruction of old records, there
is no question of providing such information even if the disclosure of such information is not
prohibited under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.

● No disclosure in case of pending trial [Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act]

CASE LAW- In the case of Ashok Agarwal, Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Department of Revenue18, the applicant asked for certified copies of files relating to the
prosecution proceedings against him, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Judgment: The Commission said that since the matter is sub-judice (in trial before a court of
law), there is a due process of law under which the appellant may obtain the documents to
defend himself in his case before the trial court. The Commission rejected his appeal to
obtain the documents from the public authority, and held that since the matter is under
investigation, the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) would apply.

● Information on an ongoing investigation can be given in special

circumstances [Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Mangto Ram vs. Addl. Commissioner &PIO, Delhi Police 19,
the appellant had filed an application with the police authorities. The applicant wanted
information on the ongoing investigation into the death of his daughter under mysterious
circumstances.
Judgment: The CIC examining the case held that this case was an exception to the general
rule laid down in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, which prohibits the disclosure of information, as
the supply of information to the victim’s family would not put any obstacles or impede the
process of investigation. The Commission further noted that, ‘‘Far from impeding the
investigation, taking the appellant into confidence will give a positive direction to the
investigation and enable the authorities to swiftly reach the truth.” The Commission ordered
the police to provide the status of the investigation to the appellant within three weeks.

● Vigilance report findings can be disclosed [Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act]

18 Appeal No.01/IC (A)/2006, dated 16/02/2006

19 Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00355, dated 26/12/2006

15 | Page
CASE LAW- In the case of P.P.K. Rana vs. CPIO, Delhi Police and AA, Delhi Police 20,
the applicant had asked for a report of the vigilance enquiry, which was instituted against her,
as an employee of a public authority. The public authority informed her that the information
asked could not be provided as per the provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, according
to which information which would impede the process of investigation cannot be provided.
Judgment: The Commission held that Section 8(1)(h) of the Act does not prohibit the
sharing of information in the form of the concluding part of the Vigilance report, and only the
“gist” (the confidential part) could be kept confidential. The CIC ordered that the concluding
part of the vigilance report be disclosed to the appellant.

● Public authority to disclose information if public interest outweighs the

harm to the protected interests [Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi 21, the
appellant had sought a copy of the letter received by the public authority regarding his
suspension, from the CBI, which was investigating the case. The public authority replied that
the information requested by the applicant was exempted from disclosure by virtue of
Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Judgment: The Commission, rejecting the appeal of the applicant, held that the exemptions
from disclosing information, under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as well as under the
relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act, would apply. The Commission further said
that if the public authority, decides that public interest in the disclosure would outweigh the
harm to the protected interests, it can disclose the information, which was not the position in
this case.
Note: The principle that the information from a non-public authority can be obtained
indirectly from the concerned public authority which has the power to access such
information under any other law for the time being in force was subsequently reaffirmed in
the case of Surendra vs. Directorate of Education, Delhi Government22.

● No disclosure of third-party confidential information [Sec. 8(1)(j) of the

RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of A.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank 23, the appellant had
sought information regarding the bank account of another person with whom the applicant
had no professional or business relationship. This information was refused to the applicant by
the public authority.

20 Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00322, dated 11/12/2006

21 Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/20060523, dated 26/3/2007
22 Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00521, dated 5/4/2007
23 Appeal No.12/IC (A)/2006, dated 14/3/2006

16 | Page
Judgment: The CIC held that a bank is under duty to maintain the secrecy of accounts of its
customers, who are also third party. The CIC further held in this case that since the applicant
had not established any bona fide public interest in having access to the information sought
nor did he have any association or business relationship with the company (bank), his appeal
cannot be accepted in terms of the law as provided in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

● Information in respect of a period, prior to twenty years [Secs. 8(1) and

8(3) of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of S.R. Pershad vs. Directorate General of Supplies &
Disposals24, the appellant had sought some information, which is exempted under the Act,
but which was more than 20 years old. The public authority did not provide him with the
requested information.
Judgment: The CIC ruled that Section 8(3) is part of Section 8, which deals with exemption
from disclosure of information. Section 8(1) specifies classes of information which are
exempted from disclosure. Section 8(3) stipulates that the exemption under Section 8(1)
cannot be applied if the information sought is older than 20 years.

● Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly

provided [Sec. 8(1) of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University25, the
applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a
student in the university hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him. The
appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the university saying that the
information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, without
providing any further reasons as to how the information sought could not be provided under
the RTI Act.
Judgment: The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act
to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions
are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to mala fide denial of legitimate
information. The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the application. The
Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for
information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties
under Section 20(1) of the Act.

6. Section 11 (THIRD PARTY INFORMATION)- The Right to Information Act also

covers individuals/firms/organisations which directly do not fall within the scope of
the Act, but they have submitted some of their information related to contracts,
24 37/ICPB/2006, dated 26/6/2006
25 Decision No.CIC/OK/A/00163, dated 7/7/2006

17 | Page
 business deals or financial details to government agencies (public authorities). Such
information can be accessed under the Right to Information Act by the citizens. These
individuals/firms/organisations are covered under the definition of third-party under
the RTI Act.

The definition of a third-party under Section 11 of the RTI Act covers anyone other
than the public authority dealing with the application and the requester (applicant) for
information as shown below:

The records supplied by a third party but held by a public authority are included within the
definition of “information” under the RTI Act and can be the subject matter of request for
information. Section 11 of the RTI Act requires that if the information asked by a citizen
relates to a record that has been supplied by a third party, and is not treated as confidential by
that party, the PIO of a public authority is at liberty to provide such information to an
applicant. If the information is treated as ‘confidential’ by a third party, then the following
steps will have to be taken by the PIOs:
Ø The PIO must give a written notice to the third party within five days of the receipt of an
application for information seeking his opinion, whether the information should be disclosed
to the applicant or not.
Ø the third party must make a submission to the PIO within 10 days, whether to disclose the
information or not.
Ø Within 40 days of the receipt of the application, the PIO must decide. Should the
information related to the third party be provided to the applicant or not, and then convey his
decision to the third party.
Ø the third party can appeal against the decision of the PIO to disclose information relating to
him/her to an RTI applicant to appellate authorities.
A PIO should use his discretion in dealing with the application seeking information related to
a third party. While using his discretion, he should keep in mind trade and commercial secrets
protected by law, protection of the violation of privacy of individuals and public interest
outweighing the harm to the interests of the third party. Under Section 11 (third party) of the
Act, all the private industries, banks, or any other firms, which has business
dealings/contractual relationships with the public authorities, are covered. Citizens can ask
for information about these firms from the public authorities, which maintain their records.

18 | Page
CASE LAW- Case In the case of K.K. Mahajan vs. Cantonment Executive Office 26, the
appellant, an employee of a public authority, had applied for some information relating to the
prosecution of another employee (third party), because under similar circumstances the
appellant was convicted while the other employee was exonerated.
The public authority refused to provide him the information he had asked for on the ground
that the third party had refused the disclosure of information about it to the applicant.
Judgment: The CIC held that the RTI Act does not give a third party an automatic right to
order the public information officer (PIO) of a public authority, not to disclose information
pertaining to it.
The CIC further held that the public authority is required to evaluate the third party’s case in
terms of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and find
out that the information asked is not barred from disclosure.
Even if the information is barred from disclosure, then the public authority is to examine if it
would be in the public interest to disclose the information sought and its disclosure will
outweigh harm if any to the individual third party.
The public authority must arrive at the findings by properly assessing the facts and
circumstances of the case. A speaking order should thereafter be passed accordingly.

7. Section 18, 19, 20 (POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INFORMATION

COMMISSIONS, APPEAL, PENALTIES)- The CIC/SIC is also the apex body of
appeal (second appeal) under the Right to Information Act. However, the first appeal
is to be filed with the first appellate authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.

An applicant could file the first appeal against the order of the PIO, if the information
asked by an applicant is refused or only part of the information requested by the
applicant is provided. The First Appellate Authority is usually a designated senior
officer of a government department (public authority where the request for application
had been submitted. The first appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the decision, regarding refusal of information by the PIO of the public
authority. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the first appellate
authority, then he can file a second appeal to the CIC or the SIC. This appeal must be
filed within 90 days from the date of decision of the AA (in the first appeal). There is
no time limit, which is prescribed under the Act, for disposing the second appeal for
CIC/SIC.

Besides the provision of appeal, there is a provision of complaints for the applicant as well. If
an applicant has not been able to apply to the PIO; he has been denied information; his/her
information request has not been responded within the time limits fixed under the Act; he has

26 CIC/AT/A/2006/00014, dated 22/5/2006

19 | Page
been charged unreasonable fees by the PIO; he has been given false or incorrect information
or he/she faces any other problems relating to obtaining the information, then the applicant
can file a complaint with the CIC/SIC.
While hearing the appeal if the CIC/SIC finds that the PIO has deliberately denied
information or provided incorrect information, then it can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day
till the information is furnished, subject to a total of Rs 25,000 [Section 20]. It can also
recommend disciplinary action against the PIO, under the service rules of the department.
The Commission, in its order, can award compensation to the applicant or impose a penalty
on the PIO of a public authority. The applicant has one more avenue of appeal after the
CIC/SIC. He/she can challenge the decisions of the CIC/SIC under the writ jurisdiction of the
High Courts (Article 226) or the Supreme Court. The powers and functions of the CIC/SIC
have been defined in Section 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. Public authorities and PIOs should
know that non-compliance of the RTI Act can draw the information commission’s ire, which
can impose penalties on the PIOs or direct public authorities to implement the Act in letter
and spirit.

● Commission not a forum for execution of a court decree [Sec. 18(1)(e) of

the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Ajay Goel vs. D.C.P.27, the appellant filed a complaint with the
CIC under Section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act, against the police department (a public authority).
The applicant had sought the help of the CIC against the police department which was not
taking action to carry out the decree of the High Court passed in a particular case.
Judgment: The Commission (CIC) dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. The
CIC held that it was not the appropriate forum to hear complaints under Section 18(1)(e) of
the RTI Act, for execution of a decree passed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

● No additional information can be sought at the appellate level [Sec. 19 of

the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Mahadeo Barik and others vs. General Manager South-
eastern Railway, Kolkata28, the appellant had filed an appeal against the order of the public
authority, which had refused to provide him with the information sought. The appeal,
however, was very lengthy with several repetitions and use of highly technical legal
language. The appellant had also asked for information on some new points during the
appeal.
Judgment: It was held by the CIC that an appeal should be drafted in a simple and direct
manner and must be brief. It must not be unnecessarily long, too detailed and contain
technical language with several repetitions. The CIC further held that no fresh grounds for
27 Appeal No.CIC/AT/C/2006/00035, dated 28/6/2006
28 CIC/OK/A/2006/00069, dated 18/5/2006

20 | Page
seeking additional information can be allowed to be urged at the appellate level under Section
19 of the RTI Act, unless found to be of a nature that would require their admittance, if the
same has not been brought up in the application to the public authority.

● ‘Reasonable cause’ justified for the delay in providing information [Sec.

20 of the RTI Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Amal Das vs. Arun Mishra, PIO, UT Admn. Daman29, the
appellant had filed a complaint with the CIC under Section 18 of the RTI Act, for the delay in
providing information to him.
Judgment: It was held by the CIC that in cases of delay in providing information, the
reasonable cause as laid down in Section 20, due to which the information asked from a
public authority could not be provided in time, should be considered. The CIC ruled that if
the delay in providing information is due to some urgent official work, in which the
employees of a public authority are engaged, e.g., preparation of the departmental budget,
which could not be postponed, then in such cases, the delay can be condoned under the Act.

● Disciplinary action against Appellate Authority [Sec. 20(2) of the RTI

Act]
CASE LAW- In the case of Dr. Anand Akhila vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research30, the applicant had asked for certain information from the PIO of the CSIR (public
authority). The information was refused by the PIO stating that it was exempted under the
RTI Act and was informed about the appellate authority with which he could file the first
appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, without filing a formal appeal by the
applicant/appellant, sent a letter to the applicant that the information asked by the applicant
could not be supplied.
Judgment: The CIC recommended disciplinary action against an Appellate Officer by
extending the meaning of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that though an
appellate authority is not covered under the penal provisions of the Act but in this case, it
clearly failed to uphold the Act in the public interest. It was observed that this decision
might be sent to the public authority to consider disciplinary action against the Appellate
Authority, under their service rules.

CONSTITUTION OF PUNJAB STATE

INFORMATION COMMISSION (PSIC)

29 Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2006/00074, dated 28/6/2006

30 CIC/EB/C/2006/00040, dated 24/4/2006

21 | Page
The Government of Punjab constituted the Punjab State Information Commission on 11th
October 2005. Sh. Rajan Kashyap, IAS (Retd.), * former Chief Secretary to Govt. Punjab
was appointed Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab under Section 15 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 on the same day.

Sh. Suresh Arora, IPS (Retd.) has been administered the oath of Chief Information
Commissioner, Punjab under section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and joined the
office on 10.07.2019 (AN). His term of office is up to 25.09.2023.

The main office of the Commission is located at Red Cross Building, Near Rose Garden,
Sector 16, Chandigarh.

● ROLE OF PUNJAB STATE INFORMRATION COMMISSION AS A PUBLIC

AUTHORITY

Punjab State Information Commission exercises powers for implementation of RTI Act under
Sections 18,19,20 and 25. At the same time Punjab State Information Commission is itself a
Public Authority as defined in section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005.

Section 4 describes the obligations of public authority under the Act as below: -

"Section 4.

22 | Page
1. Every public authority shall

a. maintains 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.

b. publishes 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.

23 | Page
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

c. publishes all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the
decisions which affect public.

d. provides reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

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.

3. For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely
and, in such form, and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

4. All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness,
local language, and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the
information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer available free or at
such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

MAIN/COMMON ISSUES
RELATED TO RTI

24 | Page
I. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITHIN 30 DAYS-
As per sec.7 of the RTI Act, 2005, “the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be, on
receipt of a request u/s 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 reason as specified in sections 8 and 9.” As per a
study20, it was observed that more than 50% of the information seekers mentioned that it
took more than 30 days to receive the information from the PIO. The experience of citizens
from disadvantaged communities was like the overall experience levels.
Often the PIOs reply by mails. Receiving such replies gets more challenging in cases where
the Appellants are based in inaccessible places which fails to effectively support technology.
Sometimes, the matters reach up to the stage of the Central Information Commission solely
because the Appellants haven’t received the copy of the reply. Such cases portray the
carelessness on the part of the respondents. Consequently, a major chunk or resources and
time gets flown out without any progress causing a major hindrance in the overall
development. Thus, this issue demands grave attention and seriousness on the part of the
Public
II. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECORD RETENTION POLICY-
As per Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, a Public Authority needs “to maintain all its records duly
catalogued and indexed in a manner and 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 has a different set of Record Retention Policy. Some of the policies
are very complicated in nature. In several cases, the PIOs shrug off the matter by merely
stating that the information being sought by the Appellant due to their record retention Policy
that provides scope for storing information only to a certain period. Eventually the Appellant
not only fails to get the requisite information, but also end up wasting time and money
because of such policies. The current record management guidelines at Centre and in most
states are not geared to meet the requirements specified under the RTI Act. There is lack of
any electronic document management system in any of the Departments (basis the
Information Provider Survey). Thus, it is incumbent upon the PIOs to display their Record
Retention Policy on the website so that it can be accessed by the public.
III. LACK OF TRAINED AND AWARE PIOS-
An in-depth understanding of the RTI Act is a basic requirement of a PIO to discharge duties
effectively. Unfortunately, a very low number of the PIOs seem to have received RTI
training. They are not clear with several sections as stated in the Act. The lack of knowledge
and seriousness among the PIOs poses a huge problem for they are meant to be the
supervisors of RTI. If information lacks on their part only, the whole purpose of the Act gets
defeated. The problem gets aggravated in cases of Transfers. Multiple CPIO transfers lead to

25 | Page
circulation of responsibility from one CPIO to another causing delay in the overall result and
frustration among the Appellants.
In several cases that involve the section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 which speaks of exemptions,
PIOs simply state the same in the reply and fail to provide a logical explanation to the same.
Although, a few initiatives have been taken by CIC and Centre for Good Governance and a
website for RTI has been created under Capacity Building project, wherein knowledge
repositories and landmark judgements are provided21. However, the awareness of these
initiatives/websites amongst the PIOs continues to remain significantly low.
IV INADEQUATE REMEDIES FOR THE APPELLANT-
Sometimes, it would take years of pursuance and effort for the Appellants to acquire the
required information. In the meantime, the Appellant undergoes a huge loss in terms of time,
money, and peace. So even if the Appellant gets the information in the end, it necessarily
does not restore him to normalcy for the entire procedure had cost him everything including
mind peace. Thus, in such cases, the Appellant, deserves compensation.
Due to the limited role of the Commissions, they fail to provide the Appellants with due
compensation and remedy. The Information Commission has the power to instinct the Public
Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. However,
the Information Commissions in each of the 5 States studied24 have rarely used this power.
Instead, if aggrieved, they are asked to go to courts for further remedies which would be
highly unfair. An aggravated person who has suffered for months or years, if asked to go to a
court for some financial compensation or remedy, would feel betrayed. Therefore, it’s very
important that adequate measures and remedies should be made available within the
Commission itself, such that they not only feel satisfied but also respected. A content and a
happy citizen force are what every government would look forward to.
V IMPROPER RESPONSE BY THE PIOS-
In several cases, as observed by the author, it was felt that the PIOs failed to adequately
justify or furnish a logical explanation to elucidate their response. As a result, the whole
responsibility of understanding the application of the stated section gets shifted onto the
Appellant. For a common man, it gets challenging to interpret and comprehend the sections
that is provided to them by the PIOs. Moreover 75% of the citizens are dissatisfied by the
response of the CPIOs.16 Thus lack of satisfaction often made the Appellants restless and
agitated.
Therefore, as public authorities, it should be the duty if the PIOs to explain their
stance to the appellants with due care and concern for their issue. While they cannot be
forced to disclose information, they should back up their argument with certain logical and
convincing explanation such that the appellant understands the grounds for such response.

INTERACTION WITH
COMMISSION
26 | Page
 S.No. Court Attended Date Interaction and Learning
1. Sh. Anumit Singh Sodhi, 01-09- ⮚ General Idea About RTI Act,
SIC 2021 2005
⮚ Challenges Faces by staff
during Video conferencing of
Qualification: (English court
Lit. Economics), Diploma ⮚ General Idea about Complaint
in Marketing (London and appeal case in RTI Act
School of Economics, UK) ⮚ Read case files and analyse the
Experience: Delegate, point of facts
Punjab Youth Congress.
Organized and planned
elections of the
Panchayats, Block Samiti,
Zila Parishad, MC
(Firozpur) and Punjab
Assembly Elections.
2. Sh. Asit Jolly, SIC 03-09- ● Proper discipline conduct in
2021 court
● Personal information can’t be
Qualification: PhD in provided under RTI Act
Palaeontology (Earth ● Personal information is an
Science); MSc Honours in invasion in privacy of an
Geology; BSc Honours in individual as well as it threatens
Geology the life and liberty of the
Experience: Deputy individual.
Editor with India Today ● PIO can be directed for video
magazine in Chandigarh conferencing
responsible for covering ● Senior Citizens can be provided
Jammu & Kashmir, information at their doorsteps
Punjab, Haryana, by the PIO if they are facing
Uttarakhand and Himachal any physical issue
Pradesh. Also reported on ● Staff was very helpful and
issues like aviation safety, interactive
poverty, science, social
trends and political
developments in Assam,
Delhi, Uttar Pradesh,
Gujarat etc. Special
Correspondent with The

27 | Page
 Asian Age/ Deccan
Chronicle newspaper.
Correspondent with the
BBC's South Asia
Regional Unit (SARU),
Hindi Service, Urdu
Service and BBC News
Online.
3. Lt Gen A.K. Sharma, SIC 07-09- ● We got an insight on RTI was
2021 misused and we saw the casual
attitude of the respondents as
Qualification: B.Sc.; well as of the appellants.
M.Sc. (Defence & ● High courts have a cause of
Strategic Studies); M.Phil. contempt of court which creates
(Defence & Management a obligation for both the parties
Studies) and to attend the court but due to no
such clause in RTI act,
M.Phil. (Defence & sometimes, both parties reflect a
Strategic Studies) causal attitude.
Military Qualification: ● Here, we observed that there are
BSc, Higher command, very few genuine cases.
NDC and attended counter ● Sometimes, appellants forgot to
terrorism and security maintain a civic decorum and
studies course in Germany. put certain allegations on public
authorities.
Experience: Illustrious
military career spanning
38 years. Commissioned
into 2nd Battalion the Sikh
Regiment and commanded
the same on the Line of
Control. Subsequently
commanded a Brigade in
the Northeast, a Rashtriya
Rifles Force in J&K and a
Corps deployed along Line
of Control in J&K.
Commanded a
multinational Brigade as
part of United Nations in
Democratic Republic of
Congo.
Pioneered the
implementation of RTI
Act in the Army when RTI

28 | Page
 Act was enacted in 2005.
Held important staff
appointments at Army HQ
and HQ IDS.
Awards: Uttam Yudh
Seva Medal (UYSM);
Yudh Seva Medal (YSM);
Sena Medal and COAS
Commendation Card.
4. Sh. Amrit Partap Singh 08-09- ⮚ Most of the appellants are black
Sekhon, SIC 2021 mailers and use RTI as for
Harassing the departments and
trying to misuse RTI act for
Qualification: B. Com, their personal jealousy
LLB ⮚ Information which hampers the
investigation proceedings
Experience: Officer on cannot be sought
Special Duty to minister of ⮚ Third part information is
State for External Affairs, dismissed under RTI act u/s 11
Government of India.
Member, State
Consultative Committee,
Food Corporation of India.
Officer on Special Duty to
Hon'ble CM, Punjab.
5. Sh. Hem Inder Singh, SIC 09-09- ⮚ Only Available and existing
2021 information can be sought from
the public authority
Qualification: M.A. ⮚ Discussion with SIC sir on the
(Political Science) misuse of RTI act, that RTI
Activist filed tons of application
Experience: Member, for same information again and
Khalsa College Governing again for harassing the public
Council, Amritsar. utility services
Member, Chief Khalsa ⮚ Misconduct and non-acceptable
Diwan, Amritsar. Vice- behaviour of appellant
President, S.Desa Singh regarding the case which is a
Majithia Public School, disrespect of the court
Majitha. Chairman,
Majitha Co-operative
Marketing cum Processing
Society, Majitha.
6. Sh. Navjot Pal Singh 10-09- ⮚ Discussion about Law
Randhawa, IAS, Secretary 2021 profession and career prospect

29 | Page
 to the commission in Litigation
⮚ Discussed about law colleges
and different career after law
graduation

7. Sh. Suresh Arora, CIC 13-09- ⮚ Discuss about the misuse of

2021 RTI act and corruption in
system by CIC sir experience
Experience: More than ⮚ Discussed misused like
36-year Experience as a Harassment, Blackmailing,
Police Officer on various Resources- time waste,
posts DGP Punjab, jealousy, and personal interest
Additional Director rather than public interest
General of Police, ⮚ Discussed Uses of RTI act
Inspector General of which cover all the misused of
Police, Inspector General act like Transparency and
of Police-cum-Director, accountability in the system,
Deputy Inspector General public interest in large,
of Police and Senior Decision making of public
Superintendent of Police; authority and empowerment of
Retired as Director common man
General of Police, Punjab. ⮚ CIC Sir suggest Three
suggestions for improvement
3-year experience of for compliance of RTI act
Public Information Officer 1. "Locus stand", Commission
(PIO) in Police should have the power to ask
Department. the intention of the appellant to
obtain that certain information
whenever s/he again files an
RTI.
2. First Appellate Authority
should be accountable
3. Some authorities should be
vested in commission for
compliance
⮚ CIC Sir suggest a book for
reading “HOW TO WIN BY
SHIV KHERA”
8. Sh. Khushwant Singh, SIC 14-09- ⮚ PIO can be directed to provide
2021 true information as per RTI Act
and information cannot be
Qualification: B.A. and sought in a particular form
Bachelor of Mass ⮚ The role of 3rd party information
Communication from
Panjab University,

30 | Page
 Chandigarh.
Experience: He has a
wide range of experience
in media & writing. He has
authored five books and is
a former consulting editor
Day & Night News. He is
also a former columnist,
Hindustan Times.
9. Sh. Avtar Singh Kaler 15-09- ● If an appellant is absent on
2021 various hearings, then his
conduct is enough to imply that
he is satisfied, and the case can
be dismissed
● SIC Sir order for compensation
and penalties of 25000rs
● Moreover, the representatives
had no knowledge regarding the
case in which they were
appearing
● Here, we also observed that
compensation and penalty
serves as a pressure on the
respondents to provide
information to the appellants.

FEEDBACK AND SUBJECT

MATTER

S.No Case Subject matter Feedback Feedback

31 | Page
 . (Applicant) (Respondent)
1. Appeal A) Copy of eviction Unsatisfactory with The conduct and the
order dt. 25-04-2018 the commission. The process of the SIC and
of your office in commission is partial the commission is very
respect of #13, towards the satisfactory.
Golden city. government official,
favouritism and
B) Copy of report of
nepotism are there.
duty magistrate after
eviction.
C) Copy of report of
SHO Kharar sent to
Tehsildar.
D) Copy of list of
articles (Inventory)
while evicting the
above house.
E) Also supply the
notices & postal
receipt or name of
official who served
the notices.
2. Appeal A) Provide copy of He said that there He was happy with
duties of should be some action judge and said that
tehsildar/Naib against the PIO who Punjab commission is
Tehsildar for deliberately do not best.
implementing the give information early
orders of DC/ADC but supplies the same
for eviction of on the 30th day.
residential houses.
3. Appeal A) The appellant
sought certified copy
of complete
enlistment file with
documents and
noticing etc for the
estimate done of
contractor firm.
B) Certified copy of
verification report
with all the
documents of above

32 | Page
 contracts.
4. Applicant is satisfied Respondent is not well
that the court and versed with RTI Act
judge are performing and shows a casual
required actions to attitude. Thus faced
provide her with the some difficulties and
information. not satisfied with the
commission.
Appellant here breaks Respondent is satisfied
the civic decorum but by the commission and
overall he is satisfied furnished the
as the Court ordered information from his
the PIO to send him side and is ready to
the information via the send information again
registered mail. in case of none
delivery of the mail.
Appelant here doesn't Respondent is satisfied
maintain the cubic by the commission.
decirum again. He Appellant here is seen
was called to the as demanding
commission to collect voluminous
the information information.
handed over by the Respondent is called in
respondent. Applicant person and hand over
is satisfied the information to the
considering all the commission.
circumstances.
Appellant is satisfied . Responses is ordered to
court ordered the sned the information
respondent to send the within 15days and at
information within 15 least 2 days before the
days and in case of court hearing. The
none compliance , attitude of sending the
appellants can be information 10 minutes
compensated by the before the court
respondent. hearing is not tolerable.
Overall , the
respondent is satisfied.
Appellant is not Respondent is satisfied
satisfied here but he with the response of
can't be provided with the court.
information as the
information demanded

33 | Page
 is third party
information and can't
be given without
consent.

34 | Page
 ANALYSIS OF THIRD-PARTY
INFORMATION CASES

The passing of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was seen as giving an empowering tool in
the hands of the citizens of India, six years post its implementation, loopholes have surfaced
with misuse of the many fundamental concepts, which have yet not been defined to allow for
a consistent pattern of decisions. Among many problems that emerge with the Act, a major
problem is defining the extent to which an individual has access to other people’s
information.

According to section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'third party' means a person other than the
citizen making a request for information and includes a 'public authority'. This implies that
the term 'third party' includes anyone other than the appellant or the respondent.

In matters where an appellant is seeking information not regarding his or her own activities or
is asking for details of several persons other than him or her, information cannot be provided
until the ‘third party’ consents to disclosure and subsequently until the Central Public
Information Office (CPIO), after considering the implications of such disclosure allows it.

Section 11 (1) the Act provides the procedure to access third party information wherein the
appellant needs to request for the third party’s consent after which the CPIO will produce a
written request to the 'third party' and within a stipulated time obtain their response.
However, it is not the information bearer (third party) who holds the key to disclosure. The
power, by the RTI Act, 2005, is vested in the public information officer who will then, either
see a 'larger public interest', or otherwise allow disclosure based on the merits of the case.

Procedure of disclosing third party information:

On receipt of the submissions of the third party, the PIO shall keep the submissions in view
and then decide whether the information sought shall be disclosed or not. If the PIO does not
find any merit in the submissions of the third party, he shall disclose the information sought
to the applicant. On the other hand, where the PIO decides that the information sought shall

35 | Page
not be disclosed then the basis for denial of information must be in accordance with Sections
8 and 9 of the RTI Act only.

The Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:

1. The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the
information sought for.

2. Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to
wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking
information and his credentials will have to be investigated. If the profile of the person
seeking information, considering other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that
under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score
against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the
information solicited.

3. The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied
by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in hands
of a busy body to settle a personal score.”

hon'ble bench, in the light of aforesaid reasoning, considering various statutory provisions of
the RTI Act, High Court rules of various high courts, Supreme Court rules and settled judicial
precedents has held –

Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the
information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an
application/ affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with
the provisions of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different procedure as the practice or
payment of fees, etc. for obtaining information. In the absence of inherent inconsistency
between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not
apply.

The information to be accessed/ certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through
the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not
be resorted to.

36 | Page
 RTI SUCCESS STORIES

1. Adarsh Society Scam: The applications filed by RTI activists like Yogacharya
Anandji and Simpreet Singh in 2008 were instrumental in bringing to light links between
politicians and military officials, among others. The 31-storey building, which had
permission for six floors only, was originally meant to house war widows and veterans.
Instead, the flats went to several politicians, bureaucrats, and their relatives. The scandal has
already led to the resignation of Ashok Chavan, the former chief minister of Maharashtra.
Other state officials are also under the scanner.

2. Public Distribution Scam in Assam: In 2007, members of an anti-corruption

nongovernmental organization based in Assam, the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti, filed an
RTI request that revealed irregularities in the distribution of food meant for people below the
poverty line. The allegations of corruption were probed, and several government officials
arrested.

3. Appropriation of Relief Funds: Information obtained through an RTI application by

an NGO based in Punjabi, in 2008 revealed that bureaucrats heading local branches of the
Indian Red Cross Society used money intended for victims of the Kargil war and natural
disasters to buy cars, air-conditioners and pay for hotel bills – among other things. Local
courts charged the officials found responsible with fraud and the funds were transferred to the
Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

4. IIM’s Admission Criteria: Vaishnavi Kasturi a visually impaired student, in 2007

was denied a seat in the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore, one of the country's
premier management institutes - despite her impressive score at the entrance examination.
Ms. Kasturi wanted to know why and wondered whether it was because of her physical
disability. She filed an RTI application to request the institute to disclose their selection
process. Although she failed to gain admission to the institute, her RTI application meant that

37 | Page
IIM had to make its admission criteria public17 . 17 Vibhuti Agarwal, A look at some RTI
Success Stories, WALL STREET JOURNAL (June-14-2019) .

MISUSE OF RTI ACT

There are numerous instances of Right to

Information Act, 2005, being misused. Even the State Information Commission was aware of
the fact, but currently, there is no provision to keep a tab on it. According to State
Information commissioner in Nagpur Bhaskar Patil, who has vast experience in dealing with
the cases under RTI Act, the information sought was sometimes misused for alleged
blackmailing. "However, providing information can't be stopped as there is no provision of
asking for a motive or reason to be asked to the RTI applicants,”. He added that many a time
the information sought infringed the right of privacy of individuals; still there are many
loopholes in the procedure which need to be plugged so that there shouldn't be any misuse or
abuse of the Act by vested interests.

There are instances where RTI information was sought on the same subject pertaining to
ration card shop as many as 10 times. It clearly indicates that something is fishy. Even
information of hotel owners was demanded. There is third-party interest involved in such
applications. But providing information can't be denied as activists are smart enough to turn it
into a public cause. In hotel owners' case, they may say that they want to check any violations
in obtaining hotel licenses.

Sounding a note of caution to all the public information authorities of the Central and State,
the Department of Personal & Training Government of India issued a circular, warning them
to desist from supplying such information to the applicant, which is non-existent and non-
available, but is based on drawing assumption. The circular says that “public information
officer is not supposed to create information or interpret information or solve the problem
raised by the applicant or furnish replies to their hypothetical questions.”

● STRATEGY TO TACKLE MISUSE OF RTI ACT BY APPLICANTS

The Scope of the RTI Act is to ensure only that information sought is provided within the
framework of the RTI Act and rules and there under. The ambit of RTI is very clear that is

38 | Page
the information available can only be provided. The RTI Act cannot be used as an alternative
means of accessing the law but is only an instrument for obtaining information as defined in
the Act. Here are some ideas which can be obtained to tackle misuse of RTI: -

1. By uploading all the RTI replies on department’s website

2. Issue RTI stamps

3. RTI training-workshops necessary for staff handling RTI applications

5. ID proof should be made compulsory with RTI applications

4. Increase RTI fees to rupees 50 with copying-charges of first twenty pages included

● SUPREME COURT CASES LAWS ON MISUSE OF RTI

1. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay31

In this case Supreme Court has rightly held that the right to information is a precious right,
right to information and information are intended to be arduous tools in the hands of
responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The
provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to
light the necessary information under section 4(1) (b) of the Act which relates to securing
transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption. But regarding other information (that is information other than those enumerated
in section 4(1) (b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other
public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary
relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical
demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated
to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the
administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work
of collecting and furnishing information

31 6 (2011) 8 SCC 497

39 | Page
“The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the
national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony
among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of
honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of
the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing
information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties
under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to
employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their
normal and regular duties”.

Right to information implicit in Article 19(1) (a)7 which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression is sacrosanct, but it is not fair that everyone should approach the court after
obtaining information under RTI Act without giving notice to the concerned authorities. The
petitioners should first approach the government before moving the Court for redresses of
their grievance.

2. MANOJ MISHRA V UNION OF INDIA32

Supreme Court in this case warned against misuse of RTI law by persons who assume the
role of vigilante merely for the sake of cheap publicity or for achieving some ulterior or
selfish motive. In the instant case, appellant had indulged in making scandalous remarks by
alleging that there was widespread corruption within the sensitive atomic organization. The
Court found that conduct of the appellant in this case did not fall within the high moral and
ethical standard that would be required of a bona fide whistle blower. In the guise of
exposing illegal activities of the public organization, he was trying to create a great deal of
panic among the local population as well as throughout the State of Gujarat.

Court pointed out that every informer cannot automatically be said to be a bona whistle-
blower because he is from the same organization and has access to some information, which
is not available to the public. The primary motive of a whistle blower should be to cleanse the
organization in which he is working; it should not be incidental or by-product for an action
taken for personal vengeance. The Court missing the appeal held that no injustice has been
caused to the appellant by punishment imposed on him and therefore, it warrants no
interference by the Court.
32 (2013) 6 SCC 313

40 | Page
 4. K. K. Sharma v. State of Haryana

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case observed as that: “Clearly, the
provisions of the RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking
information as regards public officials which is otherwise personal in nature on account
of furtherance of a personal vendetta.”

5. Rajni Maindiratta v Directorate of Education33

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that: “Though undoubtedly, the reason for
seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the
process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities
created under the RTI Act, nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law
being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.”

5. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

In this case, Delhi High Court slapped a fine of Rs 75,000 on an NGO, which used the Act to
abuse two MCD engineers and seek distasteful personal details about them. Though the plea
in the court was for probing the corruption indulged in by the two engineers, the court found
NGO Pardarshita Welfare Foundation had questioned the parentage of the engineers through
an RTI application. Observing it amounted to abuse of law, judges’ chief justice Dipak
Mishra and justice Manmohan said,

“Seeking information on parentage of a person and his medical history is unwarranted and
uncalled for. RTI law was not enacted for abusing people and seeking personal details.”

According to the NGO, several letters were written to MCD officials, but no action was
taken against the engineers. “We cannot give any type of clean chit to the MCD engineers,
but the information sought exposes vindictive attitude,” said the bench. The RTI also asked
whether they suffered from sexual disorders, if they had carried out a DNA test for their
mother, whether their mother was a surrogate or stepmother and sought the name of their
biological father and stepmother. The NGO defended itself saying the engineers were

33 [W.P (C) No. 4930 of 2011] 12 [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015]

41 | Page
blackmailing it and used “unparliamentarily” language and that was the reason such questions
were raised.

LIST OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS, PUNJAB WHICH HAVE UPDATED/NOT

UPDATED RTI DISCLOSURE ON THEIR WEBSITE

S.No. Updated Not Updated

1. Department of Agriculture Department of Elections

2. Department of Civil Aviation Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries

3. Department of Cooperation Department of Defence Services Welfare

4. Department of Governance Department of school education

Reforms & Public Grievances

5. Department of Home Affairs and Department of Excise and Taxation

Jails

6. Department of Industries & Department of Finance

Commerce

7. Department of Personnel Department of Employment Generation

and Training

8. Department of Planning Department of Food, Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs

9. Department of prosecution and Department of Forest & Wildlife

litigation Preservation

10. Department of Higher Education Department of General Administration

and Languages

42 | Page
 11. Department of Sports and Youth Department of Social Justice,
Services Empowerment and Minorities

12. Department of Health & Family Welfare

13. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

14. Department of Information and Public

Relation

15. Department of Labour

16. Department of Legal and Legislative

Affairs

17. Department of Local Government

18. Department of NRI Affairs

19. Department of Parliamentary Affairs

20. Department of Power

21. Department of Printing and Stationery

22. Department of Program Implementation

23. Department of Public Works

24. Department of Medical Education and

Research

25. Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation

& Disaster Management

26. Department of Rural development and

Panchayat

27. Punjab Energy Development Agency

28. Department of Irrigation

43 | Page
 29. Department of Economic & Statistical
Organisation

30. Department of Investment Promotion

31. Department of Water Supply and

Sanitation

32. Department of Vigilance

33. Department of Transport

34. Department of Tourism and Cultural

Affairs

35. Department of Technical Education and

Industrial Training

36. Department of Welfare of Freedom

Fighters

37. Department of Social Security and

Development of Women and Children

SUGGESSTIONS

❖ Pendency-
To begin with, the government could take steps to reduce pending appeals. Under the RTI
Act, when an applicant is denied information by a government department, the first appeal is
made to the appellate authority in the department. If unresolved, the RTI applicant can move
the office of the Central Information Commission (CIC)—for queries related to central
government—or State Information Commission. Government data shows that pending
appeals have been a consistent hurdle: in May 2014, when the BJP government came to
power, close to 35,000 appeals were pending before the CIC. In June 2019, about 31,000
appeals were pending, over 9,000 of those pending for over a year. Currently, four out of the
ten positions of information commissioners are vacant.

❖ Prune the exemption list-

44 | Page
According to an RTI ratings report by the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy,
India’s rank slipped from second position in 2011 to eighth in 2018. India remains one of the
top-ranked nations but there are several problems with its access regime, the report said. It
flagged blanket exemptions from the RTI to “security, intelligence, research and economic
institutes" and “information held by private entities which perform a public function". In its
current form, Section 8 of the RTI Act lists ten exemptions, ranging from any information
that may hurt national security, impede the process of ongoing investigations to cabinet
papers and deliberations of the council of ministers.

❖ Protect whistle-blowers-

In March 2018, Nanji Sondarva was allegedly clubbed to death in Gujarat’s Rajkot district
after filing an RTI application seeking details of a newly constructed road in his village.
According to a tracker of assaults on RTI activists set up by the Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative (CHRI), a Delhi-based international non-profit, 84 RTI activists have been
murdered since 2005 for seeking information on illegal construction, alleged scams in social
welfare schemes, and corruption in panchayats. While seven activists have committed
suicide, more than 350 have either faced assault or harassment.

❖ Imparting proper on-the-job training to PIOs-

PIOs should be given proper training both before and during their tenure so that they can
apply their minds independently and decide whether the information can be given and to what
extent. They must be made to understand the purpose of the legislation and their own
significance in exposing corruption and accelerating the country’s development.

❖ Changing the Composition of the Committee for the Appointment of PIOs –

Under Sections 12 and 15 of the RTI Act, the Chief Information Commissioners and
Information Commissioners at both Central and State Government are appointed by a
Committee headed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, respectively, and
comprising the opposition leader and a cabinet minister to be nominated by the Prime
Minister/Chief Minister. This structure is slightly misbalanced because out of the three
people appointing, two are a part of the ruling government. Therefore, this may give rise to
circumstances wherein the government appoints its own loyalist to the post to ensure that the
whistle-blower is kept at bay. In the present scenario, where PIOs are already reluctant to

45 | Page
give information, this could be dangerous. Thus, it is suggested that the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court or his/her nominee should also be a part of the Committee that appoints
Information Commissioners. There should not be any veto power and the decision by the
majority should be final. This will ensure a proper check-and-balance system.

❖ Prohibiting Disclosure of Applicants’ Details-

There have been instances of government leaking information about the details of the RTI
applicants, which has subjected the latter to blackmailing, threats and even death. Not only
should the Whistle-blowers Protection Act be strictly enforced, but also a specific provision
should be imposed in the RTI Act that prohibits disclosure of details of the RTI applicant and
imposing a punishment to those, who act on the contrary.

❖ Constituting Separate Benches-

To reduce the backlog of appeals pertaining to the RTI Act in the High Courts and the
Supreme Court, separate benches may be constituted both in the High Courts and the
Supreme Court to dispose of the matters quickly.25 25 Gopika Nambiar, Right to Information
As An Anti-Corruption Tool, NUJS Journal of Regulatory Studies, January 2018, at 83, 84.
16 | P a g e

❖ Adequate Staffing-

The recruitment in government departments must match the vacancies. Overburdening of

work on the shoulders of a few is also one of the reasons for an incessant denial of
information.

❖ Digitising all Records-

Compulsory digitisation of records must be done. The government can make use of the
skilled but unemployed youth in the country to do the same.

❖ Broadening the Scope of Public Authorities-

The definition of “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is a bit narrow and
should be broadened to include all bodies and institutions that discharge public functions,
though they may not come within the ambit of State as per Article 12of the Indian
Constitution. • Including political parties under the ambit of RTI: All national and regional
political parties must be subject to RTI.

46 | Page
 ❖ SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICERS

1. The Public Information Officers at the institutions providing information are found
busy with number of other activities other than providing information. The Public
Information Officers thus appointed should perform gathering and disseminating of
information as their prime job

2. A stitch in time saves nine which means a timely effort prevents more work later.
Hence it is suggested that the Right to Information authorities should adhere to section 727 of
the Act which expects to provide the information as expeditiously as possible. This
suggestion is given as it is observed that the officers try to dispose of the request for
information within a month.

3. The delay in providing information due to the loose connections between levels of
implementers needs to be avoided. There should be co-operation among the different levels
of officers involved in providing information. This will avoid the harassment caused to the
public to give the application to the concerned Public Information Officer.

4. It is suggested that every public authority should computerise their records for wide
dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens
need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

5. In case of illiterate applicants, the request cannot be made in writing. The officers in
such a case should render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to
reduce the same in writing.

6. To be on a safer side, it is advised to the officers to provide the information, which is

brief, true and easily understood by the citizens. This will avoid further complaints resulting
into wastage of time, energy, and money. If some rules, references, byelaws are to be quoted;
a copy of these may also be supplied to the applicant so that he can understand the limitations
of the person concerned. In addition, while giving replies; satisfaction of people should be
kept in mind.

7. The Public Information Officers must make the heads of the departments or
organization, understand the importance of Right to Information Act, procedure to be

47 | Page
followed, time framework, etc. Public Information Officers must direct them that this is to
their own advantage as this would promote efficiency and responsiveness.

8. The Public Information Officers must make the heads of the departments or
organization, understand the importance of Right to Information Act, procedure to be
followed, time framework, etc. Public Information Officers must direct them that this is to
their own advantage as this would promote efficiency and responsiveness.

9. The public functionaries should be more active and sensitive towards the public and
should supply the required information with more enthusiasm. They should be aware of their
duty to advise and assist information requesters. Likewise, they should be fully aware that the
people have a right to call on any officer for assistance, and that officer has a duty to help
them. 27https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1831074/ 19 | P a g e

❖ SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO IC’S AND GOVERNMENT

1. Public authorities should not maintain secrecy as far as possible at the time of
implementing the policies and programmes of the government. It must be open for all. The
government should give necessary instructions to different departments to follow the
principle of openness so that the transparency in the department can be maintained.

2. Instead of playing an evasive role, the bureaucrats should be simple, sympathetic to the
problems of the common people and lucidly explain the plans, policies, and programmes of
the government.

3. Recognising how important it is that all officials covered by the law understand it and
support it, experience has shown that one of the most important activities that need to be
undertaken when preparing to implement any Right to Information law is to provide training
to all officials. All Public Information Officers and appellate authorities need to be fully
trained on what their responsibilities are under the law, how to manage applications and of
course, how to apply and interpret the law.

4. It is observed that due to inadequate support staff, there is slow paced of disposal of
request, the applications pile up and there is long waiting period. Adequate and efficient
support staff should be put in place for quick and effective pro-active communication and
information transfer.

48 | Page
5. Even fourteen years after the enactment of the pioneering Right to Information Act,
penalties for delays in providing what has been sought under the law are imposed in very rare
cases. There must be stringent penalty and effective prosecution system for violating the
mandatory provision.

6. It is found that there is low awareness level among the public about the Right to
Information Act. Section 26- 28 of the Act states that the appropriate government may
develop and organize educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public,
especially disadvantaged communities, regarding how to exercise the rights contemplated
under the Act. The government may resort to the major sources of awareness like radio,
television, newspaper, seminars, and discussions.

7. Many departments of the Government of India seem to have appointed multiple public
information officers. This results in citizens having to run from office to office seeking out
the correct Public Information Officer sometimes in vain. Appointment of multiple public
information officers should be avoided so that harassment to the citizen is avoided.

8. The system that one must deposit a certain amount of fees to get the information should be
avoided. We should follow the procedure followed in European Countries at the time of
supplying information to the people. In those countries, information is available without any
cost.

RTI ROLE IN EXPOSING CORRUPTION

Though the RTI Act has played a pivotal role in exposing corruption in various arenas, yet
the statistics presented above are indicative that the cancerous growth of corruption has not
been brought to a standstill; scams cripple the economy and development of the country
continue to plague the three branches of the state. The following are, seemingly, some of the
shortcomings of the RTI Act.

1. Overlooking the Concept of Grand Corruption: The understanding of the concept of

corruption that most of the common people have been limited in the sense that they tend to
narrow it down to misappropriation of finances and public funds. They tend to overlook the
concept of „grand corruption‟ that sets in when the political class frames legislation or
policies with the sole objective of benefitting a certain class of people alone. For example, a
questionable policy which cripples the economic condition of the country might be

49 | Page
formulated by the government with the sole aim of helping certain private businessmen, with
quid pro quo. This is contrary to the concept of Good Governance. ‟ In Abdul Farook v
Municipal Council, Perambalur and Ors”, the Apex Court observed that the Doctrine of
Good Governance requires the government to rise above its political interests and act only in
public interest and for the welfare of its people. In the State of Maharashtra and others v
Jalgaon Municipal Corporation and others, it was held that one of the principles of good
governance in a democratic society is that private and smaller interests must always give way
to larger public interests in case of a conflict.

2. Infrastructure Problem: One of the major problems faced by the public authorities that
prevent them to disclose the information is infrastructure problems. Many public authority
offices in village and backward areas lack proper infrastructure. In many offices there is no
computer or if there is any computer or laptop then there is either only one computer in the
staff of many people. This is one of the major hindrances in disclosure of information
because they have hardly any resources to publish any information on the websites because
there is hardly any computer or laptop, and this is also a major problems and challenges to
RTI Act. 18 2009 (15) SCC 351. 19 2003 (9) SCC 731. 13 | P a g e

3. Non- Maintenance of Websites: This problem is also a major hindrance in Suo motu
Disclosure and therefore to RTI Act. This includes not publishing obvious and important
items of information on websites, not publishing relevant facts before taking key policy
decisions, poor record management practices and so on. In its Annual Report (2012-13), the
Central Information Commission (CIC) lamented that despite having good information &
communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, mandatory disclosure norms remain
unattended. Only 568 public authorities had so far reported posting of their Section 4(1) (b)
disclosures on their websites.

4. One-sided usage of the enactment by the common man: The common man tends to use
RTI for private purposes than to expose corruption. It is primarily the journalists, NGO
members and some well-known anti-corruption crusaders who constantly file RTI
applications when they feel that there is some sort of foul play in the system. However,
government departments are wary of the above-mentioned people, especially journalists, and
so they tend to refuse information or sometimes give incomplete information.

50 | Page
5. Lack of Personnel: The government departments recruit fewer employees as compared to
their sanctioned strength. So, the PIOs and other staff are already overburdened and on top of
it, when they are asked to do an arduous task with no sort of incentive, they do not work as
effectively to provide information.

6. Lack of Cooperation from the Public Authorities and the Political Class: Many of the
public authorities and the political class have been and are doing their best to keep the veil of
secrecy on their affairs. There is a tendency to give too much of information, in addition to
what is asked, which often confuses and misguides the RTI applicant. Specific information
pertaining to what is asked is not given. Sometimes, applications are returned with flimsy
reasons like citing that there is no proper signature. Each state government makes its own set
of amendments to exempt its bodies from RTI purview. For example, in Tamil Nadu, the
cybercrime cell and the Home (Police VII) Department is exempted.

7. Low Public Awareness: Low awareness level: Section 26 of the Act states that the
appropriate Government may develop and organize educational programmes to advance the
understanding of the public, especially disadvantaged communities, regarding how to
exercise the rights contemplated under the Act. However, as per the survey it was revealed
that only 15% of the respondents were aware of the RTI Act. The Nodal Departments (with
specific reference to the State Governments studied) have not undertaken any substantial
steps to promote the RTI Act. It was observed that the awareness was least among the
disadvantageous sections of the community such as women, rural population, and
OBC/SC/ST category. During the awareness survey, it was also observed that the major
sources of this awareness were: • Mass media channels like television channels, newspapers
etc. • Word of mouth.

8. Political Parties not yet within the purview of RTI: Six national parties in India
including the Bhartiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress have refused to comply
with the Central Information Commission Order of 2013 declaring them as public authorities.
The Commission held that that even though political parties are non-governmental
organisations, yet they wield and influence the exercise of governmental power and, thus, it is
imperative for political parties to be transparent.

51 | Page
 CONCLUSION

The Right to Information Act was made to achieve social justice, transparency and to make
accountable government but this act has not achieved its full objectives due to some
impediments created due to systematic failures.

As observed by Delhi High Court that misuse of the RTI Act must be appropriately dealt
with; otherwise, the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act".

It is well recognized that right to information is necessary, but not sufficient, to improve
governance. A lot more needs to be done to usher in accountability in governance, including

52 | Page
protection of whistle-blowers, decentralization of power and fusion of authority with
accountability at all levels.

This law provides us a priceless opportunity to redesign the processes of governance,

particularly at the grass roots level where the citizens’ interface is maximum.

53 | Page