Many citizens face situations where they’ve sought information through various channels, only to find themselves hitting a wall when they try to get the same details via the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This can be frustrating, especially when crucial details are needed for personal or professional matters. This case highlights a critical aspect of RTI: if information has already been shared in one forum, can you access it again through an RTI application? The answer, as this Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling shows, is a resounding yes, and it can even be provided free of charge.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular RTI case, an appellant had lodged a complaint that led to the removal of certain employees from the Indian Overseas Bank. The basis for this action was a complaint filed customers. The appellant, wanting to understand the full picture and the justification for the employees’ removal, filed an RTI application seeking two key pieces of information: firstly, copies of the complaints made eight customers, and secondly, the investigation report prepared investigating officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially did not provide the requested information. However, when the matter escalated to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), a direction was issued that the appellant should be allowed to inspect the records pertaining to the disciplinary and inquiry proceedings. This meant the FAA acknowledged the appellant’s right to view the relevant documents, even if copies weren’t directly provided at that stage.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially failed to provide the information sought appellant. This is a common scenario that often necessitates filing a First Appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) then intervened and directed that the appellant be allowed to inspect the records. This partial success indicated that the information was likely available, but the PIO’s initial response was inadequate. The case then proceeded to the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a final decision.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent, representing the public authority, made a crucial statement. They claimed that the complete information sought appellant had already been provided to the appellant in a different forum – specifically, in the proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. The appellant, however, contested this, stating that they had not actually received the information. This created a discrepancy that the CIC needed to resolve. The core of the dispute was whether information previously disclosed in one legal or administrative process could be withheld or ignored when requested under the RTI Act.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) carefully considered the arguments presented. The Commission made a significant observation: if the information had already been furnished to the appellant in another forum, then there should be no objection to providing the same information in response to the current RTI application. The CIC firmly stated that the existence of disclosure in another forum does not negate the right to receive that information under the RTI Act. Consequently, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant, and importantly, free of cost. This order is highly significant because it reinforces the principle that the RTI Act is an independent right of access to information, and previous disclosures do not diminish this right. Furthermore, the directive to provide it free of cost acknowledges that the appellant had already faced delays and hurdles, and the authority should not impose further costs for information it had already processed and shared elsewhere.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Information already provided elsewhere can still be sought under RTI. Even if you believe you have received information through other means, such as court proceedings, tribunal hearings, or administrative inquiries, you can still file an RTI application to obtain it. The RTI Act provides an independent right of access.
- Lesson 2: Don’t give up if the PIO claims information was already given. If a PIO states that the information was provided in another forum but you haven’t received it or are unsatisfied, you have the right to appeal. The FAA and CIC can ensure you get the information.
- Lesson 3: Seek free of cost disclosure when appropriate. If information has already been processed or shared, and you are subsequently asked to pay again through an RTI application, you can argue for a waiver of fees, especially if there have been delays or previous non-compliance. The CIC can order information to be provided free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act in such circumstances.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which government department or public sector undertaking holds the information you need.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State precisely what information you are seeking. If you know it was provided elsewhere, you can mention that you are seeking a copy of that information.
- Specify Previous Forums (if known): If you are aware the information was shared in a specific tribunal, inquiry, or other forum, you can mention this to help the PIO locate it.
- File and Follow Up: Submit your application with the prescribed fee and keep a record of your application and the acknowledgment. If you don’t receive a response within 30 days (or 35 days if involving other departments), file a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the investigation report prepared investigating officer in relation to the complaint filed by [mention number, e.g., eight] customers against [mention department/employees, if known] during the period [mention period, if known]. Additionally, please provide copies of the complaints filed customers. If this information has previously been provided in any other forum or proceeding, please provide a copy of that disclosure.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a robust tool for transparency and accountability. It empowers citizens to access government-held information, regardless of whether it has been shared through other channels. your rights and the principles upheld CIC, you can effectively use RTI to obtain the information you need, ensuring that no relevant detail remains hidden simply because it was once disclosed elsewhere.
