Many Indian citizens use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get crucial information from government departments. However, sometimes the process can be confusing, especially when information is refused. This case highlights an important aspect: can a Public Information Officer (PIO) from one department comment on the decision made PIO from another department? Understanding this can help you navigate your RTI applications more effectively.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The appellant had initially filed an RTI application with the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation seeking certain information. The PIO of Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation refused to provide the information, stating that the matter was subjudice (pending in court) before the Supreme Court of India. Dissatisfied with this response, the appellant then filed a second RTI application, this time with the Supreme Court of India. The purpose of this second application was to ascertain whether the Supreme Court had issued any specific directive prohibiting the disclosure of information related to this matter. The PIO at the Supreme Court replied, informing the appellant about the status of two cases pending before the Supreme Court. The PIO stated that only show cause notices had been issued in these cases, and replies were still awaited.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation’s PIO was a refusal to disclose information based on the ‘subjudice’ plea. This is a common ground for denial under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that a court has expressly forbidden from being published. However, the appellant felt this was not adequately justified. When the RTI application was filed with the Supreme Court of India, its PIO provided information about the pendency of cases and the issuance of show cause notices, without commenting on the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation’s decision.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act only allows for non-disclosure if a court has *expressly forbidden* the publication of information. The appellant contended that the PIO of the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation had not cited any such express direction from the Supreme Court, but had merely used the ‘subjudice’ argument. The appellant wanted clarity on whether any such express prohibition existed. The PIO from the Supreme Court, present at the hearing, reiterated the information already provided – that only show cause notices were issued and no replies had been received yet.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, in its decision, made a crucial observation. It noted that the PIO of the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation had not referred to any express direction from the Supreme Court that would prohibit disclosure. The PIO had relied solely on the ‘subjudice’ status of the matter. The Commission further clarified that whether the PIO’s initial decision to deny information was right or wrong was a matter that would be decided Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission if the appellant chose to file a second appeal there. Crucially, the CIC rejected the appeal against the Supreme Court’s PIO. The Commission held that a PIO of one public authority cannot comment on or adjudicate the decision taken PIO of another public authority. This means each PIO is responsible for their own department’s actions and responses under the RTI Act.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Grounds for Denial: While ‘subjudice’ can be a valid ground for denial under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, it requires an *express prohibition* from a court. Simply stating a matter is pending may not be sufficient. You can use RTI to seek clarification on whether such an express prohibition exists.
- Lesson 2: PIOs Act for Their Own Department: A PIO’s role is to provide information or reasons for denial from *their own public authority*. They cannot comment on or review the decisions of PIOs from other government bodies. If you have an issue with a PIO’s decision in one department, you should appeal within that department’s hierarchy or approach the relevant State/Central Information Commission.
- Lesson 3: Proper Appellate Authority: If your initial RTI application is denied, and you wish to challenge the denial, ensure you are filing your appeal or second appeal with the correct authority. In this case, the dispute with the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation’s PIO should have been pursued through the State Information Commission, not an RTI with the Supreme Court to question the PIO’s decision.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which public authority holds the information you need.
- Draft Your Application: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Be specific and avoid vague requests.
- Cite Relevant Sections (if applicable): If you believe information is being wrongly denied based on a specific section of the RTI Act, you can mention it.
- File and Pay Fees: Submit your application to the PIO and pay the requisite fee. Keep a copy for your records.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide details of any express direction issued Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, if any, that prohibits the disclosure of information pertaining to case number [mention case number if known] or any matter related to [briefly describe the subject matter].”
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of understanding the scope and limitations of the RTI Act. While the Act empowers citizens to seek information, it’s crucial to follow the correct procedures and understand the roles of different public authorities. Remember, a PIO’s responsibility lies within their own department. If you face a denial, focus on challenging that specific denial through the appropriate channels, rather than seeking commentary from another authority. This approach will help you get the information you are entitled to more effectively.
