Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get information about government decisions and appointments. Sometimes, the information we seek might seem sensitive or related to security organizations. This case highlights how the RTI Act can still be used to access crucial details, even when dealing with appointments to sensitive posts, and what steps to take if your RTI application isn’t answered properly.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An applicant filed an RTI application with the Cabinet Secretariat. They wanted to see all the records and documents related to the appointment of a specific person as the Secretary to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). This is a high-level appointment within a key intelligence agency, and the applicant sought transparency regarding the process.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response and subsequent proceedings showed some confusion. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the information sought didn’t directly relate to the exempted organization (RAW) itself, but rather to the process of how the appointment was made competent authority. However, the PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat initially transferred the application to the RAW. The RAW then stated that since their organization is listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, no information could be disclosed. This created a deadlock, prompting the applicant to file a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) for non-compliance with earlier directions.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the second hearing before the CIC, the situation became clearer. The Commission noted that appointments at the Central Government level, including high-ranking positions like Secretary to RAW, are made with the approval of the competent authority, often the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The CIC reasoned that the appointment of the Secretary to RAW was processed and approved central authority, not solely RAW itself. Therefore, the information pertaining to this appointment could not be withheld simply because it concerned an appointment made to RAW. The authority that processed the appointment, in this case, the Cabinet Secretariat, had a duty under the RTI Act to disclose information related to that appointment, subject to the standard exemptions. While the respondents argued that inputs from RAW might have been part of the process and could be exempt, the CIC focused on the core appointment decision itself.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) delivered a significant order. It directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Cabinet Secretariat to provide copies of all the requested records and documents concerning the appointment of the person as Secretary to the RAW. Importantly, the CIC clarified that any details about the appointment made *by* RAW itself, if any, were not to be disclosed, as that part might fall under exemptions. If the Cabinet Secretariat did not hold all the information, the PIO was instructed to transfer the RTI application to the appropriate public authority responsible for that information, who would then provide it to the appellant. This order emphasized that the process of appointment, even to sensitive organizations, can be subject to scrutiny under the RTI Act, provided the information is held public authority and does not fall under specific exemptions.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Focus on the Process, Not Just the Organization: Even if the information relates to an organization listed in the Second Schedule, if the information sought is about a process handled public authority (like the Cabinet Secretariat processing an appointment), you may still be able to get it. Highlight the authority that made the decision or processed the paperwork.
- Lesson 2: Understand Different Public Authorities: Recognize that different government bodies handle different aspects of a process. An appointment to a department might be processed central authority, even if the final posting is within that department.
- Lesson 3: Persist Against Non-Compliance: If a public authority fails to comply with the directions of the FAA or CIC, file a complaint. The CIC is there to ensure the RTI Act is implemented effectively.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office was responsible for the decision-making or processing of the appointment you are interested in. This might not always be the department where the person was ultimately posted.
- Clearly State Your Request: Be specific about the documents and records you want. For example, “I request copies of all correspondence, notes, and approval documents related to the appointment of [Name/Post] as [Position] in [Organization].”
- Mention the RTI Act: Clearly state that you are filing the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
- Follow Up and Escalate if Necessary: If you don’t receive a satisfactory response within 30 days (or 35 days if transferred), file a First Appeal. If the First Appeal is also unsatisfactory or not responded to, you can file a Second Appeal or Complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or the relevant State Information Commission.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide all records, notes, and approval documents concerning the selection and appointment process for the post of [Specific Post] within [Relevant Department/Authority] during the period [Start Date] to [End Date].
Conclusion
This case is a valuable reminder that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for citizens seeking transparency. Even when dealing with appointments to sensitive organizations, the process of decision-making often involves public authorities who are accountable under the RTI Act. identifying the correct public authority and precisely stating your request, you can leverage the RTI Act to gain insights into how important decisions are made in our government.
