Many Indian citizens aspire to higher education, often relying on educational loans to achieve their dreams. But what happens when you want to know more about how these loans are disbursed or why certain applications might be rejected? This case highlights an important aspect of the Right to Information (RTI) Act: understanding the limits of what information can be practically provided authorities, especially when it involves vast amounts of data spread across numerous branches. For aspiring students and their families, knowing these boundaries is crucial for effective RTI usage.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Bank of Baroda with a specific request. They wanted to know details about educational loans granted to students from prestigious institutions like IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and PGIMERs. Specifically, the applicant sought to understand how many students were ultimately selected for these loans, the total amounts disbursed, and importantly, how many applications were rejected along with the reasons for rejection. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the bank provided a point-wise response to this application.
How the Public Authority Responded
The PIO’s initial response indicated that the information requested was not readily available in a consolidated format. The bank explained that to gather this data, information would need to be collected from its various branches located across the entire country. This, they argued, would involve a significant diversion of the bank’s resources, potentially impacting its normal functioning, and could be considered as imposing a disproportionate burden on the public authority under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The bank maintained that they had acted in compliance with the RTI Act the information they possessed and that no further action was warranted.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the proceedings, the bank’s representative reiterated their stance. They emphasized that compiling the requested information from all their branches nationwide would be an extremely arduous and resource-intensive task. The sheer volume and dispersed nature of the data meant that fulfilling the request would require a substantial diversion of manpower and time, potentially hindering the bank’s primary operations. They argued that their response was in line with the spirit and letter of the RTI Act, which allows for exemptions when providing information would cause undue hardship or disproportionately divert resources.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
After considering the arguments presented the appellant and the respondent (the bank), the Central Information Commission made its decision. The Commission concurred with the bank’s submission. They found that the bank had adequately explained the practical difficulties in collecting the requested information due to its widespread and un-consolidated nature. Consequently, the CIC ruled that no further intervention was necessary in the matter and rejected the appeal. This decision underscores that while the RTI Act aims for transparency, it also acknowledges the operational realities and resource constraints faced authorities. The CIC’s decision in this case emphasizes that the Act does not mandate public authorities to create or collect information that is not already available in a readily accessible format, especially when doing so would be excessively burdensome.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Specific but Realistic: While it’s good to be specific in your RTI application, also consider the practical feasibility of the information you are seeking. If the information is likely to be scattered across numerous offices or branches, a public authority might argue that its collection would disproportionately divert their resources.
- Lesson 2: Understand Section 7(9): Familiarize yourself with Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. This section states that an information shall ordinarily be provided within thirty days of the receipt of the request Public Information Officer. However, it also mentions that if the personal liberty of any person or the liberty of any other person is involved, the information shall be provided within forty-eight hours. Crucially, it also states that where the request is in respect of information of the nature described in sub-section (5) of section 6, the same shall be provided within a period of five days of the receipt of the request. This is the section that allows public authorities to decline requests if providing the information would cause an unreasonable burden on their resources.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Available Information: The RTI Act is primarily for accessing *existing* information. It does not compel public authorities to compile, collate, or generate new information that is not readily available in their records. If the information is not in a consolidated or easily retrievable format, the authority may be justified in not providing it, as seen in this educational loan case.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which bank or financial institution holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State precisely what information you are seeking. For educational loans, specify the type of loan, the institutions involved (if applicable), and the specific details like disbursement amounts or rejection reasons.
- Mention the RTI Act: Clearly state that your application is being filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
- Pay the Fees and Submit: Pay the prescribed fee and submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide the total number of educational loan applications received institution from students of [mention specific institutions like IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, PGIMERs, etc.] during the last financial year [mention year]. Please also provide the total amount disbursed as educational loans during the same period, and the number of applications rejected with the general reasons for rejection, if such consolidated data is available.
Conclusion
This case serves as a valuable reminder that while the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency, its application is subject to practical limitations. Public authorities are not expected to undertake Herculean tasks to fulfill every RTI request. Applicants should aim to seek information that is reasonably accessible. these nuances, citizens can file more effective RTI applications and better navigate the process of seeking information from government bodies and public sector undertakings across India.
