RIGHT TO INFORMATION Module 7.

2
ACT ,2005
FAQ RELATED TO RTI
MATTERS
1) Are the Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and other Private
Organizations covered under the RTI Act?
NGOs come under the ambit of ‘public authorities’ if they are directly or indirectly
funded by the Government.
2) In which language can the application be filed before a PIO?
The application can be either in:
Hindi
English
The official language of the area in which application is being made.
Sec.2 (h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self government
established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,
and includes any—
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
3) In which language is the PIO expected to reply to the RTI application?
The PIO should provide the copies of the records in the language in which they are
available, particularly when the information is not required to be maintained in a particular
language. The PIO is not expected to get into the role of a translator.
4) What are the essential requirements of an application filed before a PIO?
The essential requirements of an application are:
The applicant should be a citizen of India;
Particulars of information sought;
Payment of application fee;
Address of the applicant.
5. Can a PIO ask for proof of citizenship from an applicant?
Ordinarily no proof of citizenship is required to be submitted along with the application nor is the PIO
expected to ask for a proof. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, a PIO may ask for the proof for
example, if he has reason to believe that the application has not been filed by a citizen or if there is a doubt
whether the applicant is an Indian citizen.
6. What are the modes of payment of the fee which should be accepted by a PIO?
For the Central Government Public Authorities, a request for obtaining information should be accompanied
by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of:
Cash
By Demand Draft;
Banker’s Cheque;
IPO -payable to the Accounts officer of the Public Authority.
Online (if the RTI application is filed online through RTI portal.)
7. Should BPL applicants be charged for being provided the requested information?
Persons belonging to the Below Poverty Line category cannot be charged any fees / charges
at all. The form of access can be decided by the PIO concerned, subject to the provision of
the Act that information shall be provided in the form in which it is sought.
8. If the applicant does not pay the additional fees towards cost of providing
information within the 30 days deadline will the PIO be penalized for failing to
provide information to the applicant?
No, the PIO will not invite any penalty in such cases. The 30-day clock stops ticking from
the date of dispatching the intimation for further fees issued by the PIO and restarts on the
date on which the applicant pays the additional fee [Sections 7(3)(a) & 7(3)(b)].
9. Is the PIO expected to provide answers to all the questions in an application?
A PIO is expected to provide ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI
Act and not answer the questions of the applicant.
An information-seeker can’t demand from a public authority its opinion or seek its
advice in a matter of the petitioner’s interest. A PIO is not expected to provide
immaterial such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as they
cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2 (f) of the
RTI Act. The reasons available on record should be provided and the PIO is not
expected to post–facto create reasons.
10. When should 'Inspection' be allowed by the PIO?
In case where voluminous information is sought, the PIO may advice the applicant
to inspect record, minimize & prioritize the requirement.
If the applicant is not sure what documents are needed, the inspection of records is
being frequently resorted to. After the inspection, the applicant may seek copies of
the limited documents which may be required. Wherever the applicant desires,
inspection of record should be allowed especially in those cases where providing
photocopies may lead to disproportionate diversion of resources.
11. Can any action be taken against a PIO if he has provided excess information
or under information?
Under section 21 of the Act, no legal proceeding shall lie against any PIO for anything that
is done or intended to be done in good faith. This provides for a fair degree of protection to
the PIO and there shall be no penalty if he can prove that he has acted in good faith. The
term ‘good faith’ has not been defined in the RTI Act. One may refer to the General
Clauses Act, 1897, or the Limitation Act, 1908, to arrive at the definition.
For an act to be done in ‘good faith’ :
- the state of mind of the officer should be indicating honesty and lawfulness of purpose,
and
- due care and attention should be exercised.
The rule of the thumb which all the PIOs may follow is to provide all the information
sought by an applicant, unless it is specifically exempt from disclosure under the Act.
12. If the PIO has provided excess information or under information, can a request for imposition of
penalty be made before the Information Commission?
Under section 21 of the Act, no legal proceeding shall lie against any PIO for anything that is done or
intended to be done in good faith. Therefore, there shall be no penalty if the PIO can prove that he has acted
in good faith.
13. What is the role of a First Appellate Authority (FAA) under the RTI Act?
A FAA plays an important role in the RTI regime.
The appeals against the orders of the PIO are filed with the FAA.
FAA is expected to dispose of the appeal within 30 days of receipt of application extendable to 45 days for
reasons to be recorded in writing.
If the FAA is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal, he may
admit appeal after the expiry of the appeal of 30 days.
Compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority in the Department is the responsibility of that
Appellate Authority.
CASES :
In the year 2012 January, V Gopalkrishnan, a Chennai-based Right to Information
(RTI) activist had sought details of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's income tax returns
from 2000 to 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Income tax, New Delhi
wrote to Sonia Gandhi asking her to respond to the request made by Mr.
Gopalkrishnan. She flatly refused the information stating it is an intrusion into
personal freedom and does not involve public interest. She also stated that it involves
a security risk. The PIO in turn declined information to Mr. Gopalkrishnan.
In May 2012 year, Anil Galgali, a Mumbai-based RTI activist had sought details of
the penalty that cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar had paid for occupying his new
bungalow in Bandra in September 2011 without possessing the required occupancy
certificate. The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) reverted to Sachin
Tendulkar under Section 11 which requires the PIO to seek opinion of the person
whose personal information is being sought. Mr. Tendulkar too declined making this
information public. The BMC in turn denied information to Mr. Galgali who said
that the PIO has violated the RTI Act as he had asked for details of fine collected by
the BMC and that is public information.
17. Are officials required to give information about themselves and their
families under the law? Can the public request this kind of information? Should
it be given?
Officials are not required to provide private or personal information which is
exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. Again, this must be decided on a case to
case basis. If public interest is served by disclosing such information then it must be
given.
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENTS ON RTI ACT:
The RTI Act is one of the important acts of constitution that empowers ordinary citizens to
question the working of Government. RTI Act holds an eminent importance for media,
social institutions and citizens to uncover the prevailing corruption, track progress in
government work and keeping a check on Government duties.
What is Right to Information Act 2005?
Right to Information (RTI) is an act of Parliament of India that sets out the rules and
procedures regarding right to information of citizens. Under the RTI Act 2005, any citizen
of India can request ‘information’ from a ‘Public Authority’ (a body of Government) that is
required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days.
Historical background
The RTI Act 2005 was passed by legislation of Parliament of India on 15th June 2005. It
came into force with effect from 12th October 2005. The Act has been implemented since
then to provide information to millions of Indian citizens. All the constitutional authorities
come under this act making it one of the most powerful laws of the country.
Aims and Objectives of RTI Act 2005
The Right to Information Act 2005, also known as RTI Act 2005 is a revolutionary Act that was
passed after sustained efforts of anti - corruption activities. The aims and objectives of RTI Act
2005 are given below:
To reduce corruption by promoting accountability in the functioning of every public authority.
To promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government.
To open up Government records for public scrutiny.
To enhance people’s participation in democratic process.
To develop trust among masses, especially vulnerable sections.
To provide a legal framework to empower citizens with their democratic right to access information.
To harmonize and settle any kind of conflicting interest and priorities in operations of the
Government.
The highest court of India, Supreme Court has given landmark judgments on RTI Act in the past. Let’s have a
look at them one by one:
1. CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)
Conducted by CBSE, the respondent was appeared for the Secondary School Examination, 2008. When he
got the mark sheet, he was disappointed with his marks. He thought that when he had done well in the
examination, but his answer - books are not properly valued which resulted in low marks. Hence, he made an
application for inspection and re-evaluation of the answer books. But, CBSE had rejected his request claiming
that the information sought is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act as it shares the fiduciary
relationship with the evaluators and it has to maintain confidentiality in method of evaluation. But, the student
wanted CBSE to allow him to produce the answer-books and allow him to re-evaluate.
Judgment:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the final verdict was in favor of student. The judges quoted that
“Provisions of the RTI Act continue to prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws of the examining bodies in
context of all exams. Hence, unless and until, the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer
books are exempted category of information described in clause (e) of the Section 8(1) of RTI Act, the
examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect.
2. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission (2013)
It is one of the landmark judgments on RTI Act. In this case, the petitioner had filed
an RTI application with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He wanted to
seek details about an officer working at the RPFC office. The details were related to
his appointment letter, salary details, documents related to disciplinary inquiries,
moveable and immovable properties, gifts received by him and income tax returns of
his assets and liabilities. But the request for these details was denied by the Central
Information Commissioner on the basis of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The
defendant had argued that the information sought is qualified to be personal
information.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the information sought by the petitioner is qualified to
be the personal information as defined in Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The bench
was also of the opinion that the performance of an employee is the matter between
the employee and the employer and normally these aspects fall under the expression
of ‘personal information.’ In this case, the petitioner was unable to demonstrate a
bona fide public interest in seeking information and thus the court had dismissed the
petition.
3. Karnataka Information Commissioner Vs. PIO (HC) (2013)

This has been one of the important judgment of Supreme Courts on Right to
Information Act. An RTI applicant had requested Karnataka High Court for bringing
certified copies of documents/information regarding guidelines and rules pertaining
to the scrutiny and classification of writ petitions. But the PIO had refused his
request saying that he should seek information under the Karnataka High Court rules.
When the matter went to the State Information Commission, it had disagreed with
the PIO and ordered that the information has to be provided under the RTI Act. The
Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The information
commissioner had filed this petition.
Judgment:

The Supreme Court was offended with the petition filed by an Information
Commissioner. It said that the commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting
public money by challenging the order. It had imposed a cost of Rs. 1, 00,000 on the
commission. This harsh rejection by the Supreme Court had silenced the Information
Commissions into not questioning the courts.
5. R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (2013)
Mr. R.K. had applied to the Information Officer for copies of all Note sheets and
correspondence pages of a file related to Miss Jyoti Balasundram who was the
Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
However, the information sought was denied by the Central Public Information
Officer on the grounds that the requested file had contained the analysis of Miss
Jyoti Bapasundram’s ACR which was personal information.
The officer also said that the disclosure of such information is exempt under Section
8(i) (j) of the RTI Act. Subsequent appeals to the Director and Appellate Authority
and Central Information Commission were rejected on the basis that it was personal
information that can only be disclosed if there is an overriding interest in the
dissemination of such information. He had then appealed to High Court which
rejected the application and then he moved to the Supreme Court.
Judgment:

The Supreme Court had held that information related to charges, penalties or
sanctions imposed on an employee and records containing information of such nature
or incidental were necessarily a matter between employee and employer the
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and
would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. So here the point of dissemination
of the information that would outweigh the privacy of the person on whom the
information was sought was overruled. Hence, the Supreme Court in the present case
reiterated its precedent, dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the findings of the
Division Bench.
6. The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr.

A Single Judge of Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue about declaration of
personal assets of judges of the Supreme Court. In a full court meeting held in 1997,
a resolution was passed stating that all judges of the Supreme Court of India declare
their assets to the Chief Justice of India. In 2009, an activist Subhash Chandra
Aggarwal had sought a copy of the resolution from the Central Public Information
Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO). He had also sought details of the assets of
the Chief Justices of various High Courts. But, the request was denied by the CPIO.
Hence, he had approached Central Information Commission. The Single judge bench
of the Delhi High Court had upheld the CIC ruling saying that CJI comes under the
ambit of the RTI Act. However, CPIO challenged the Delhi High Court judgment by
filing an appeal with Supreme Court of India.
Mention procedure for obtaining information under RTI Act 2005.

Ans. An applicant who desires to obtain any information under the RTI Act can
simply file an appeal on [Link] Right after clicking at “Submit
Request”, the applicant needs to fill in the required details on the page that will
appear. After filling the form, click on “Make Payment” to make payment of the
prescribed fee. An applicant can mention his/her mobile number to receive SMS
alert. Status of RTI application can be seen by the applicant by clicking at “View
Status.”