2019

•  CIC Decision dated 11.03.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Ashok Rameshbhai Mistry v. CPIO, Dena Bank, Surat  – CIC: “The Commission agrees that the remaining information including the names and account number of the NPA burrowers may not be furnished as the same are held in fiduciary capacity. The same are exempted under sub-section (1) (e) of section 8 of the RTI Act. In view of the absence of the appellant to controvert the contentions of the respondent, the response given by the respondent may be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” [Section 8(1)(e); NPA, Name & Account Number of NPA Borrower]
• CIC Decision dated 07.03.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Vipin Yadav v. PIO, Office of the Land Acquisition Collector (South-West), GNCTD – CIC: The case was remanded by the Hon’ble CIC to the current FAA/ADM for ensuring compliance of the FAA’s order dated 23.01.2017. The FAA was desired to call for explanation from the aforementioned PIOs for causing deliberate obstruction in the flow of information and non-compliance of the FAA’s order dated 23.01.2017. The Hon’ble CIC also directed for the Enquiry Report being submitted before the Commission. Further, the PIO was directed by the CIC to provide complete information, in response to the queries of the appellant, as already directed by the FAA vide order dated 23.01.2017, after submission of documents establishing title to the property, by the appellant. Compliance report was required to be submitted by the current PIO/SO,LAC within three weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action, as per law, would be initiated by CIC. [FAA, NOC for Land]
• CIC Decision dated 15.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri R.P. Rohilla v. PIO, Dte. General of Health Services, New Delhi – CIC: “Section 11 of the RTI Act does not cast an obligation on the PIO to resort to third party procedure in all cases. Section 11 comes into play only when the PIO proposes to disclose information which is personal to any third party. In the present case, the PIO held the information sought as personal and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) in absence of any element of larger public interest. Even before the Commission, no case of public interest has been established. Accordingly, the Commission finds the decision of PIO as well as FAA to be in line with law laid on the aspect. (See: Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commr. and Ors. (03.10.2012 – SC):MANU/SC/0816/2012&Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam and Ors. (31.08.2017 – SC) : MANU/SC/1068/2017)” [Sections 8(1)(j) & 11; Address of Applicant, Larger Public Interest]
•  CIC Decision dated 13.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Ms Pushpa Devi v. CPIO, Central Coalfield Limited, Jharkhand – The CIC has obverted that the legal heir of a deceased is entitled to receive information pertaining to the deceased person. [Section 20(1); Service Record]
• CIC Decision dated 12.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Razaak K. Haider v. CPIO Election Commission of India, New Delhi – CIC: “”Thus, the EVM which is available with the respondent in a material form and also as samples, as admitted by the respondent during the hearing, is an information under the RTI Act. The Commission also notes that as per the respondent, the software installed in the EVM is an intellectual property of a third party, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party concerned. However, the respondent had denied the information sought for, erroneously, under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide an appropriate reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant within four weeks … [Sections 2(f), 2(i), 6(1), 8(1)(d), 20; Electronic Voting Machine (EVM)]
• Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 – Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau – Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
  23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 
• CIC Decision dated 15.01.2019 on the Appeal filed by Mr. Kantilal B. Chavda v. CPIO, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat – CIC: “Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission advises the Vice Chancellor / Registrar of the Respondent Public Authority to suo motu disclose the information as narrated in the preceding paragraphs in the public domain in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 for ease and convenience of the stakeholders at large so that the public need not resort to the RTI mechanism for seeking such information as outlined in the aforesaid Court judgements.” [Sections 4, 8(1)(g); Purchase, Supplier/Vendor, Recruitment, Tender, University]
• CIC Decision dated 10.01.2019 on the Complaint filed by Shri S.S. Chawla v. Director,CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi – CIC: “Now, the submissions of the CPIO are not refuted that no timeline is specified in the CVC Act, 2003; however, the guidelines issued by CVC as discussed above does stipulate a time frame to all public authorities and these guidelines do not anywhere suggest indemnity to CVC itself from adhering to those timelines.
  xxx xxx A copy of this order is marked to the Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission to look into the aspect of inordinate delay in completing enquiry/investigation by CVC and take corrective
  action as deemed fit.” [Complaint, Inquiry, CVC]

2018

• CIC Decision dated 24.12.2018 – Mr. R.S. Rai v. CPIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jabalpur  – CIC: “The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding mala fide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.” [Sections 2(f), 20; Leave Record, Result Analysis]
• CIC Decision dated 21.12.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sounder Rajan v. CPIO, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai – CIC: The Commission, however, notes that the Notice for Hearing served upon the appellant was returned undelivered to the Commission with the remark “Deceased”. In view of the death of the appellant and the Commission’s Circular F. No.2/Management regulation2007/CIC-MR dated 18.06.2018, the Commission directs the respondent to publish the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the RTI application, as per the available records, suo-motu on their website …..” [Sec. 2(f), 4, 20; FD Account]
• CIC Decision dated 19.12.2018 – Nirmal Singh Dhiman v. CPIO, Deptt. of Ex-Servicemen, New Delhi – CIC: “In the event, the averred letters and corresponding noting(s) remain untraceable, Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit to this effect stating the efforts made in tracing out the information and the factum of non-receipt of letters and unavailability of file noting(s). The said affidavit should be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.” [Section 2(f); File Notings]
• CIC Decision dated 08.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. CPIO, Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi – The CIC directed for complimentary passes for hockey matches being put in public domain [Sections 6(3), 7(6), 8(1)(d), (e) & (j), 8(2); File Notings, Complimentary Passes, Hockey India League]
• CIC Decision dated 02.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Singh Jadoun v. PIO, DGEAT – CIC issued show-cause notice to RBI governor for non-disclosure of wilful defaulters’ list [Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b),(c),(d), 8(1)(a),(d),(e) & (h), 8(2), 19(8), 22; NPA]
• Differently-Abled
  SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
•  CIC Decision dated 05.09.2028 on the Appeal filed by R.P. Verma Vs. CPIO, Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun – CIC: The CPIO was directed to place this order before their competent authority to pass a speaking order ….. Appellant was warned against the misuse of RTI Act in future and was advised to make judicious use of his right to information. [Appointment, Misuse of RTI]
• RTI
  Delhi High Court has held as under:-
  “… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act] –   Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India
• CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Mr. K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, Dte. Gen. of Vig., Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi – The Appellant was not able to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. The Commission observed that the said matter pertained to exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (h) and not Section 8 (1) (j). The Commission also observed that the applicant therein sought information in the context of his own suspension pending disciplinary action, whereas in the present instance, the Appellant had sought information regarding a third party. [Sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j); Public Interest, 3rd Party]
• CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO, SPMCIL, New Delhi, CPIO, Indian Security Press, Nashik – CIC: “… … it is evident that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) to the concerned PIO was not made by the Respondent (SPMCIL, New Delhi) vide its initial reply dated 29.07.2016 and that no reply had been furnished by the Respondent (ISP Nashik) subsequent to the transfer of points 03 and 05 of the RTI application by FAA, SPMCIL, vide letter dated 06.09.2016 which was a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore instructs the CMD, SPMCIL, to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the Complainant …..” [Sections 6(3), 20(1); Processing of RTI Application/1st Appeal]
• CIC Decision dated 30.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Min. of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi – The CIC was of the opinion that a token amount of Rs.1,000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him and that this amount of Rs.1,000/- is to be paid by the public authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused him for the delay caused. [Sections 2(f), 19, 19(8)(b); File Notings, Compensations to Complainant]
• CIC Decision dated 11.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri S.P. Sinha Vs APIO, Min. of Shipping, MMD, Mumbai – The Hon’ble Commission directed the concerned CPIO to disclose the sought for information after obtaining consent of the third parties. Regarding Point No.5 of the RTI application, the respondent CPIO was directed to fix a joint inspection of relevant records on a mutually convenient date and at mutually convenient time and place and thereafter to provide certified copies of records as selected by the appellant free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act. [Sections 7(6), 8(1)(j), 11(1) of the RTI Act; DPC; File Notings, Third Party Information]
• CIC Decision dated 04.07.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Hans Raj Chug Vs. PIO, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi –  As per the CIC decision, the Commission, inter alia, found that the objection of third party(ies) was not legally tenable considering that information sought was not personal in nature. Thus the reply of the PIO and the FAA were set aside. It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Commission that the FAA had skipped the analysis of the queries vis-a-vis the responses, though he is supposed to exercise his expertise based on domain knowledge. Hence, the Commission remanded this case back to the FAA for complete and proper adjudication of the issues and ensuring that information shall be provided to the appellant upon obtaining the same from the relevant custodians of information, invoking [Section 5(4) of the RTI Act; First Appellate Authority; Third Party Information]
• CIC Decision dated 27.06.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Mr. R. Natarajan Vs. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare – The CIC observed as under:-
  “The society is a creation of MCI, housed in the MCI building for extending ease of functioning. In garb of functional autonomy, the parent body MCI cannot be said to have abrogated its right to access information from the society.”
  “The process of bestowing national honours cannot be kept away from public scrutiny. Any practice facilitating opacity will go on to diminish the sanctity of the honour and its past recipients.”
  The CPIO, MCI was accordingly directed to access information from Secretary, Dr. B.C. Roy National Award Fund and furnish the same to the appellant. [Dr. B.C. Roy National Award]
• CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Balkrishna Porwal Vs. PIO, Department of Posts – As per the CIC Decision, by denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority, but also by the CPIO, and that while public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act besides wrongfully invoking Section 8(1) (d) and (g). For the reasons stated in its decision, Hon’ble Commission concluded that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause, and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 20 of RTI Act, Hon’ble Commission also found it as a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO in view of the analysis, in the above-referred decision. [Sections 8(1)(d) & (j) and 20; Section 16 of SHW Act of 2013; Inquiry Report; Sexual Harassment; File Notings]
• CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ajay Kumar Vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow – The CIC observed  that  the  1^st appellate  authority  order  dated  13-06-2017  was  not  proper,  wherein,  the  1^st appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. In fact, the RTI application was never received by the CPIO. Therefore, calculation of timelines done by the 1^st appellate authority was without application of mind. The 1^st appellate authority was advised to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act/Rules while disposing of 1^st appeal(s). 
  The Deputy Registrar was directed to send complete RTI application file to the CPIO for taking necessary action. [First Appellate Authority (FAA)]
• CIC Decision dated 18.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Neeraj Sharma Vs. CPIO, Rajya Sabha Sectt., New Delhi – The  CIC was  of  the  view  that  the  delay  of more  than  5  days  in transferring  the  application  had  been  duly  explained  by  the  respondent and the  appellant was  provided  a  reply well  within  the stipulated  period  of  time. The Commission did not find any reasons to impose penalty on the CPIO. [Sec. 6(3); CPIO)]
• CIC Decision dated 31.05.2018 on the Appeal filed by Hitender Vs. CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi – The Commission was of the opinion that the complainant (who was an Australian citizen with the OCI card) could not be treated as Indian citizen for the purpose of seeking information u/Section 3 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the RTI Act, 2005 does not have any provisions for furnishing information to overseas citizen of India. It is applicable to Indian citizen(s) only. [Overseas Citizen of India]
• CIC Decision dated 07.05.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Mr. M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration,IB (MHA) – It was, inter alia, observed by Hon’ble Information Commissioner that he was left with no doubt that a man preparing for his self defense in penal proceeding exercises his basic human right. Any impediment in the same would invariably be a breach of human right. The term ‘violation’ as preceding the term ‘human right’ in proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act had to be understood in a broader manner so as to cover any past or ongoing violation of human rights.
  The appellant was seeking information about his own travel details to prove his innocence in a criminal proceeding. The information sought was crucial to the appellant for a fair opportunity of self defence. The Hon’ble Commission was not considering the culpability or innocence of the appellant in the criminal case set up against him; but declining a fair opportunity to arrange for material of self defence would certainly breach the human right of appellant. Furthermore, there was no impediment in terms of exceptions carved out in Section 8 of the RTI Act prohibiting dissemination of information sought. Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO, Bureau of Immigration, Intelligence Bureau/MHA to provide complete information sought within four weeks of receipt of the order. [Sections 8 & 24; Human Rights; Self Defence]
• CIC Decision dated 11.07.2017 on the complaint filed by Shri Saurabh Bindal Vs. Delhi Lawn Tennis Association(uploaded on CIC website on 19.04.2018) – The issue before the bench of the Central Information Commission was to decide whether Delhi Lawn Tennis Association is a public authority per section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2008. In the light of the reasons stated in the Order and in order to avoid multiple litigation, the bench refrained from passing an order at that stage. The matter was adjourned sine die and it was open to the parties to agitate the matter before the Commission again after the superior courts have pronounced their decision. [Section 2(h); Delhi Lawn Tennis Association is or is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act]
• CIC Decision dated 19.04.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ashok Pandit Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Maheshkhunt, Khagaria, Bihar – CIC: “The copy of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and land receipts of the borrowers is personal information of the third parties i.e. the borrowers, which is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which  has  no  relationship  to  any  public  interest  and  would  cause  an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 05.08.2016 till date should be disclosed.” [Section 8(1)(e) and (j); Land Possession Certificate]
• CIC upholds PMO’s decision not to disclose Aadhaar details of PM [Section 8(1)(j); Personal Information] – CIC Decision dated 19.02.2018 on Appeal filed by Soni S. Eramath Vs. CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi 
• SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) (Sections 8,9,11) –  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 – Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. >>> RTI-Court Judgements
• Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”, ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.” [Sections 2(f),8(1)(e),11(1),19(3); File Notings, Third Party Information] –  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 – Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India >>> RTI-Court Judgements
• CIC Decision dated 22.01.2018 on the Second Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Rajender Saxena Vs. PIO,EE, Citi Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation – CIC: “Perusal of the records of the case reveal that the FAA has passed a non-speaking and summary order without specifying how the PIO’s order is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The case is remanded back to the FAA to adjudicate over the matter and decide the same on merits, giving specific directions to the PIO to furnish the deficient information, if any.” [FAA, CPIO]
• CIC Decision dated 18.01.2018 on the Complaint filed by A. Gopi Krishna Vs. CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam – CIC: “The Commission, therefore,
  directs the FAA, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam, to inquire into the matter as to whether the RTI application was received in the branch and, if so, what action was taken on the RTI application. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks. …”  [FAA, CPIO, Departmental Action for Misplacement of RTI Application]

2017

• CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on Appeal filed by Madhu Vs. PIO & Sr. DMM, DRM Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi – The CIC directed the CPIO (Personnel) to issue notice u/s 11 of the RTI Act to the third party within five days from the receipt of the order, informing him of the Commission’s order and of the fact that the respondent was directed to disclose the information subject to third party’s consent and invite the third party to make a submission in writing on whether the information sought for in the above-stated RTI application should be disclosed to the appellant in this case. [Sections 2(n), 8(1)(j), 11(1); Caste Certificate]
• CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on the Appeal filed by Om Prakash Sharma Vs. PIO, Department of Posts – CIC: “… … CPIO is directed to explain why the Public Authority should not be directed to pay compensation to the appellant for providing illegible documents.” [Leave Record, MACP, CPIO’s action amounting to denial of information, Compensation to Appellant]
• CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri Ajay Kumar, Gurgaon Vs. National Institute of Technology, Patna – CIC: The Commission directed the CPIO to provide to the appellant only the total amount of LTC claimed by the Director, NIT as per available record, excluding the name of family members, while providing information the CPIO would adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. [Sections 10(1); LTC]
• CIC Decision dated 20.11.2017 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi Vs. The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) – Paras 29 and 30 of CIC’s Decision: “29. … … the instant Complaint is not maintainable under Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act due to the absence of cause of action. Moreover, the Complainant could not substantiate the reasons for not filing an RTi application with the Public Authority before filing a Complaint with the Commission.
  30. The Complaint is accordingly dismissed.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 18(1)(f); Disclosure Policy]
• CIC Decision dated 13.11.2017 on the Complaints filed by Shri R.K. Jain and Ms. Ita Bose against Indian Banks Association, Mumbai – CIC: The Indian Banks Association is declared as a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act 2005. [Sections 2(h), 18, 19(8)(a)(ii)]
• CIC Decision dated 20.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ramraj Sonkar Vs. CPIO, Branch Manager, SBI, Kanpur Nagar – CIC: The respondent was directed to show cause in writing that why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing in the Commission, within 30 days. (CPIO)
• CIC Decision dated 17.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Yogesh Chandra Vs. CPIO, Office of SE (Elect.). BSNL, New Delhi – The respondent denied the information relating to paras 3 and 4 (tenders awarded from September, 2011 to March, 2012; and photocopy of tender scrutiny notes) of this RTI application on technical ground saying that ‘award’ of tender was not issued from their office. The tenders were handled by the BSNL office. Therefore, the CIC decided that it is obligatory on part of the respondent to collect the information from the section/office where it is available, and provide to the appellant. [CPIO] 
• CIC Decision dated 16.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Y.N. Prasad Vs. Ahlmad Evening Court – CIC: “Judicial proceedings and records thereof are public records and the appellant has a right to secure desired information. After hearing the appellant and perusal of record, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent PIO to offer inspection of the judicial file to the appellant on a mutual convenient day and time. The appellant shall be entitled to avail copies from the record upon payment of usual charges.” [Judicial Proceedings/Records]
• CIC Decision dated 16.09.2017 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde and Shri Nimish S. Agarwal Vs. CDR Cell, IDBI Tower, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) – CDR is not a public authority under the RTI Act. [Section 2(h)] 
• CIC Decision dated 14.09.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri R.B. Patil Vs. PIO, Department of Posts – The CIC on May 29, 2017, inter alia, ordered that “It is wrong to collect huge amount after delaying the response by two months. As per law they cannot charge if they have delayed the response beyond one month. Hence the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information after certifying the documents and return Rs.7,096 to the appellant.” [Section 7(3) and (6); Refund of Fee]
• CIC Decision dated 04.09.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ashwani Kumar Avasthi Vs. The CPIO, SBI, Mumbai & Director/GM, IBPS, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) – Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is not a public authority under the RTI Act. [Section 2(h)]
• Service details of employees amount to ‘personal information’ under the RTI Act – SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 – Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr.
• CIC Decision dated 08.08.2017 on the Appeal file by Sh. RK Jain, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – CIC: “The Commission observed that uploading the details of impugned orders of the lower Courts/Tribunals can help the general public, litigants and all other stake holders in linking the Hon’ble High Court’s orders/judgments with the impugned orders and thereby serve a larger public interest.” [Sections (4)(1)(b), 22; Suo Motu Disclosure]
• CIC Decision dated 28.07.2017 on the Appeal filed by Ms. Krishna Sharma vs. PIO, Department of Posts, Supdt. of Post Offices, Gwalior – CIC: “The Commission recommends Shri Ananta Narayan Nanda, Secretary, Department of Posts & Chairperson, Postal Services Board to either instruct CPIOs to attend second appeal hearings or replace them with officers of different rank with requisite aptitude so that they responsibly represent the case during hearing.” [Section 20 of RTI Act; Second Appeal, Third Party Information, Action Taken, Pension] 
• CIC Decision dated 28.07.2017 on the Appeal filed by Munna Ahmad vs. PIO, Dargah Committee, Ajmer – CIC: “As a journalist, appellant has every right to criticize the functioning of public authority. As a citizen he can also file RTI application. But he has no right to demand Advertisements for his magazine building pressure of RTI applications.” [Improper Use/Misuse of RTI]
• CIC Decision dated 16.06.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Nammi Bano Vs. National Commission for Women – The explanation of the First Appellate Authority has been sought as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for violating law in dealing with first appeal under RTI Act, in spite of being accused of sexual harassment of the complainant, which could be a clear case of conflict of interest.
  The Member Secretary has been directed to explain why the NCW should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant for the harassment. In exercising the powers under section 18 (1) of RTI Act, the respondent authority has been directed to conduct inquiry into the appellant’s complaints, and to provide the report to the Commission. [Sections 7(9), 8(i)(j), 18(1), 19(3)&(6), 20, Sexual Harassment Act, 2013; FAA, Compensation to RTI Applicant]
• CIC Decision dated 07.06.2017 on the Appeal filed by Mohd. Amin, J&K Vs. CPIO, TCIL, New Delhi – CIC: “6. The Commission observed that the respondent should be informed of the factual position of the processing and payment of his bills. The relevant documents, note sheets etc. may be provided to him. …  … The respondent is directed to provide information to the appellant as stated in para 6 above, free of cost …” [Payment of Bills] 
• CIC Decision dated 18.05.2017 on the Complaint filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai – CIC: “5 … … In any case, a public authority should not return an RTI application merely on the ground that it is not addressed to a specific CPIO but only to ‘CPIO’.
  6. In the light of the foregoing, we direct the Respondent public authority to appoint a nodal CPIO or designate one of the existing CPIOs as the nodal CPIO and give wide publicity to his name, designation and address. It will be the task of this nodal CPIO to discharge the responsibilities contained in the directions of the High Court of Delhi mentioned in paragraph 4 above.” [Nodel CPIO]
• CIC Decision dated 06.04.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Mrs. Gunmala Jain, Lalitpur, UP Vs. CPIO, Sr. Supdt., Jhansi, UP – The appellant had filed RTI application dated 08.06.2015 seeking information regarding the PPF account of her husband Sh. Jay Kumar Jain viz. passbook of his PPF account; details of amount from opening date to 07.10.2013; copy of account opening form SB-3 and other related issues. CIC, inter alia, decided that “The respondent should search the record afresh and give a copy of search report to the appellant free of cost, and if feasible, the search should be carried out in the presence of appellant or her authorised representative. Further, the appellant shall be allowed to inspect the record on mutually agreed date and time ……”  [Inspection of Records, PPF Account, Post Office]
•  CIC Decision dated 05.04.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Sucheta Sureshkumar Vs. PIO, EPFO, Mumbai – CIC: “… … it is not proper on part of Mr. Raju Kumar to reject RTI application on the ground that name of the addressee for IPO was not correct. Besides rejecting the PIO spent around Rs. 100/- Rupees in demanding another IPO in name of correct addressee. In fact the appellant has already paid Rs.10/- to Govt. of India when he purchased the IPO. Both common sense and prudence does not justify spending Rs. 100/- asking for Rs. 10/-. If PIO had furnished information and along with that had he asked for properly addressed IPO, there could have been justification for spending Rs. 100/-. The Commission records its admonition against the CPIO for such rejection and warns the public authority not to reject RTI applications in this manner. The Commission finds Mr. Raju Kumar accountable for wasting more than Rs. 100/- for rejecting the RTI application.” [Section 6(1), Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012; Payment of Fee, PF Dues, IPO]
• CIC Decision dated 30.03.2017 on Second Appeal filed by Amrika Bai V. PIO, EPFO, Raipur – CIC: “The Commission also requires as per Section 19(8)(a)(i, iii & iv) of RTI Act, the public authority to consider pension related information as life and liberty concerned information to provide quick access to information, publish necessary guidelines to deliver the pension related information and circulate amongst all CPIOs, and train them to provide such information concerning pension within 48 hours and the FAAs to initiate hearing proceedings within 48 hours.” [Sections 7(1), 19(8)(a)(I,iii & iv), Art. 21 of Constitution, Section 125 of CrPC; Pension, Right to Life, Sr. Citizen)
• CIC Decision dated 08.03.2017 on the Appeal filed by Insad, New Delhi, Vs. Dy. P.O., Min. of External Affairs, R.K. Puram, New Delhi – CIC directed Chief Passport Officer to lay down clearly articulated policy, shared with general public, for re-verification of police report. [Sections 19, 20; Passport]
• CIC Decision dated 09.02.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Shrigopal Soni Vs. PIO, National Science Centre -CIC: “If the complaint by an admonished misuse leads to punishment, RTI will become a mockery, encouraging removed employees like this complainant to further misuse RTI and demoralize the disciplinary authorities. Hence, the complaint is rejected with another record of admonition against this complainant.” [Disciplinary Case, Suspension, Misuse of RTI, Action Against Complainant]
• CIC Decision dated 06.02.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Gopal Rao Gudi Vs.PIO, National Council of Science Museum – CIC: “The Commission directs the public authority to provide certified copies of contract copy, records of bills payable to outsourced employees and to update information about service records of outsourced employees on their noticeboard/website regularly under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act.” [Sections 2(j),4(1)(b),20; Outsourced Employees]
• CIC Decision dated 20.01.2017 on Appeal filed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO, Office of the CLC (C), Raipur, Chhattisgarh -“Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, the CPIO cannot add or introduce new reasons or grounds for rejecting furnishing of information.” [Sections 2(f), 8 and 9; Conciliation Proceedings]
• CIC Decision dated 13.01.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Shanker Goel, New Delhi – CIC: “However, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide copy of file note to the appellant, wherein the proposal was initiated/approved, in case it pertained to the appellant, after following the provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, …” [Section 8(1)(j), 10(1); Pay/Pension]
• CIC Decision dated 04.01.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri Devraj, Distt. Dharwad, Karnataka vs. CPIO, South Western Railway, Bangalore – CIC: “Copy of the appointment letter of the third party employee can be given to the appellant. Rest of the information sought e.g. education qualification etc. is personal in nature and hence exempted.” [Section 8(1)(j), third party information; Appointment letter]
• CIC Decision dated 04.01.2017 on the Appeal filed by Mr. Ankur Jindal, Delhi, vs. CPIO, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan – The CIC observed that the defense taken by the respondent under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act was vague, as no case of impact on national security etc. had been made out. It was, inter alia, ordered that “The Commission is of the view that the information should be provided to the appellant on his application dated 10.03.2015, as this is not barred under RTI Act.” [Section 8(1)(a)]

2016

• CIC Decision dated 29.12.2016 on the Appeal filed by Shri Pradeep B. Sharma, Indore vs. State Bank of India, Jabalpur/Bhopal  – The Central Information held that the information sought could not be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that moreover, the appellant had not substantiated any larger public interest for divulging such information.” [Section 8(1)(e)&(j)]
• CIC Decision dated 27.12.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Harinder Dhingra Vs. PIO, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi -CIC: “The Commission remands the first two questions of the RTI application back to the CPIO of PMO with a direction to initiate fresh efforts to find out the historical facts about these two inspiring songs- Jana Gana Mana and Vande Matharam and status accorded to them to place facts before the nation and dispel widespread misnomers about them in larger public interest, as that is a national necessity to address the patriotic and secular sentiments of the people of India. … …” [Section 6(3); National Anthem/National Song, etc.]
• CIC Decision dated 05.12.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Prashant Katela Vs. CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi – The CIC, in its order, directed the Railway Board to take steps to amend the rules regarding copying charges suitably to bring them in conformity with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and Rules. [Photocopying Charges, Direction to Public Authority]
• CIC Decision dated 17.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mrs. Gayatri Devi, Distt. Patna, Bihar Vs. CPIO, Office of GM, Personnel Branch, Vaishali, Bihar – [Section 8(1)(j); Inspection of Files]
• CIC Decision dated 16.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Hukma Raj Badala, Pali, Rajasthan Vs. CPIO, North Western Railway Division Office, Ajmer – CIC: The Commission advises the appellant to give a complete list of information, within 7 days of the order for which the reply was yet to be given to him in the context of his RTI request. The appellant was admonished for using improper language and making allegations that were not supplemented by him during hearing. [Recruitment]
• CIC Decision dated 15.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Narayan Prasad, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vs. CPIO, DRM Office, Bikaner, Rajasthan -CIC: “The respondent is advised to conduct an inquiry into why a decision was taken that the Railway Club is an autonomous body and is not within the purview of the RTI Act. The name of the person (s) taking this decision may also be given.”
• CIC Decision dated 01.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Y.K. Mall Vs. PIO, KVS, New Delhi – CIC: “The appellant as on today has a right to information about remarks in the ACR and to know the reasons for average/adverse remarks. The RTI Act does not provide any answer to such questions, for which a policy need to be formulated. The affected employees like appellant need to organize representation and the appropriate Government should consider the same. The Commission recommends both.” [ACRs]
• CIC Decision dated 01.09.2016 on Appeal filed by A.B.S.J. Rao (ESM), Kakinada District, AP Vs. CPIO, NCC Group Hq., Kakinad District, A.P. – CIC: “Commission takes very strong exception of non attendance of CPIO during the  hearing of Second Appeal. He has also not provided any reply to the Appellant. A show Cause notice should be issued to the CPIO to send his written submissions explaining as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for both lapses as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.” [Sections 7(9) & 20(1)]
• CIC Decision dated 31.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Joginder Singh, Tihar, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajendera Place, New Delhi – Any larger public interest for disclosure of the information sought by him could not be established before the Commission. “His personal grievance concerning his conviction cannot become the ground of larger public interest”, observed the Commission. Therefore, the Commission upheld the decision of the Respondents to deny the information, sought by the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. [Section 8(1)(j); Disciplinary Action]
• CIC Decision dated 16.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Tolendra Kumar Baghmar, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO, Dena Bank, Raipur  – The CIC noted that the Respondents holds the information concerning the accounts of their customers in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Appellant had not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information sought by him. His unsubstantiated allegation regarding an unauthorised withdrawal from the account by the outgoing sarpanch could not become the ground of larger public interest. The decision of the Respondents was upheld. [Sections 8, 8(1)(e), 11 and 19; Public Interest, Third Party Information]
• CIC Decision dated 16.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Sham Sundar, Faridkot, Punjab Vs. CPIOs at Mumbai and Chandigarh, NABARD
  [Sections 8 (1)(e)]
• CIC Decision dated 22.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Bhramanand Mishra Vs. PIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Lucknow [Sections 4(1)(a) & 8(1)(j); RTE Act, JJ Act; Art. 21,21A & 39(e) of the Constitution of India; Inquiry Report, School]To see detailed news, click here.
  
• CIC Decision dated 21.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Gulab Singh Rana, GM, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai Vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai – CIC: “The decision of IOB to deny the information to accused/appellant is illegal, unconstitutional and in serious violation of appellant’s internationally recognized human rights besides the RTI Act. The investigating agency, CBI, performing police functions, was a contributor of investigative inputs, while the IOB as sanctioning authority has complete decision making power. It is established that Section 24 was illegally invoked ignoring its proviso.” The IOB was directed by the CIC to provide the point-wise information sought by the appellant with relevant certified copies. [Sections 2(j), 8(1)(d),(g) & (h), 19, 22 & 24(1) of the RTI Act, Sections 5, 162 r/w 123 & 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, Articles 19(1)(a) & 21 of the Constitution of India; CBI Investigation, Prosecution]
• CIC Decision dated 11.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Vivek Duggal Vs. CPIO, Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, N. Delhi (Div. Bench Decision) – CIC: The Commission upheld the decision of the Respondents to deny the information sought at point 2 (ii) (a) to (h) of the RTI application [Sections 8, 8(1)(d), 11(1)]
• CIC Decision dated 28.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Nanik Premchand Rajwani, Distt. Thane Vs CPIO, Union Bank of India, Mumbai (Division Bench Decision) – CIC: The CPIO of the Respondent Bank was directed to provide to the Appellant the information in response to point (a) of his RTI application. With regard to the information sought at points (c) to (e) of the RTI application, the Commission saw no ground to question the submission of the Respondents that they do not maintain compiled information regarding action taken against their officers / statutory auditors in respect of the specific misdemeanours mentioned at the above points. Therefore, the Commission did not interfere with the CPIO’s response to these points.  [Sections 8(1)(a)&(d), 19; Action Taken, NPA Accounts, Economic Interest, Compiling of Information; Art. 12 of the Constitution]
• CIC Decision dated 24.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Ex Nb Sub U.S. Maurya, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Records Signals – CIC: “Relevant extracts relating to medical fitness wherever available in the Work Charter be provided to theappellant.” [Sections 8(1)(a)&(j); Army Branch (Work Order)]
• CIC Decision dated 24.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Banarasi Rai, Madya Pradesh Vs. CPIO, CBI, Madhya Pradesh – CIC: The Commission observed that in that case information has been sought from CBI, an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought did not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations by the officers of CBI. Hence, information could not be provided to the appellant. [Section 24(1); Action Taken]
• CIC Decision dated 15.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, Lucknow Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi – CIC: While providing the information on point No. 4, the CPIO should sever / blot out from the orders, copies of which are to be provided to the Appellant, the names and any other information of a personal nature (such as date of birth, personal address and family details etc.) concerning the officials, in whose case the Officer was conferred the power of disciplinary authority. ….  The Commission also pointed out the consistent position taken by the Commission that the FAA should give a personal hearing to those appellants who request for it. [Sections 8(1)(j), 10; Disciplinary Action, Personal Hearing by FAA]
• CIC Decision dated 09.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Arun Kumar Agarwal, Bangalore Vs. Security & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) – CIC: The appellant in the instant case had not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information was likely to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It being so, the Commission were not inclined to allow disclosure of the requested information. [Sections 8(1)(e)(f) and (j); Third Party, Assets & Liabilities Statement]
• CIC Decision dated 06.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Ms. Monika Singh Vs. Family Welfare Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi – CIC: The Commission directed the respondent authority to spell out their policy on compensation for the doctors dying on duty due to exposure to infectious diseases, such as the case of husband of the appellant under section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act. [Sections 4(1)(c), 19; Action Taken, Hospital, Hon’ble Commission’s Direction]
• CIC Decision dated 06.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Onkar Nath, Allahabad Vs. CPIO, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata [Sections 8(1)(a) & (d), 10]
• CIC Decision dated 26.05.2016 on Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Gurmeet Singh, Delhi Vs. Safdarjang Hospital & VMMC, New Delhi – Upon a query from the Commission as to why procedure envisaged under Section 11 of the RTI Act was not resorted to, the CPIO stated that considering the fact of ongoing legal dispute between the appellant and the patient, he was not inclined to make disclosure. The First Appellate Authority’s Order was upheld. [Sections 8(1)(e), 11; Medical Record, Court Case, Hospital]
• CIC Decision dated 25.05.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Vikas Sethi, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Department of Income Tax, New Delhi – The assessment proceedings had been completed. Hence the Commission decided that the CPIO should disclose the broad outcome of the TEP (Tax Evasion Petition) to the appellant. [Income Tax, Tax Evasion Petition, Action Taken]
• CIC Decision dated 13.05.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Gaurav Sethi Vs. University Grants Commission -The CIC, inter alia, directed respondent authority to furnish action taken report on the complaint of the appellant, and also directed PIO of Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya considering him as deemed PIO to show cause why information was not provided to the appellant and why maximum penalty should not be imposed against them for non-furnishing of information, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. [Sections 18, 20; Action Taken Report]
• CIC Decision dated 06.05.2016 on Complaint filed by Shri S.C. Agrawal Vs. Constitution Club of India (Full Bench Decision) – The CIC, inter alia, directed the concerned CPIOs to produce the lease deed and the file relating to the lease deed along with correspondence or any other relevant documents pertaining to the CCI, etc.  before the Commission, and also directed the CPIOs of CPWD and the Director (Works), Ministry of Urban Development to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not responding to the direction of the Commission dated 1.4.2016 to provide all relevant documents pertaining to the CCI. [Section 20; Property/Lease]
• सीआईसी निर्णय दिनाकित 23.03.2016 – श्री अशोक कुमार, नन्द नगरी, दिल्ली Vs सी जी एच एस, लक्ष्मी नगर, दिल्ली – [Section 8(1)(j); Appointment, Service Book]
• CIC Decision dated 22.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Rameshwar Das Bhankhar Vs. Kendrya Vidyalaya Sansthan, N. Delhi – CIC: “The appellant had sought information about a post in computer science, qualifications required for the Post of PG Teacher, copy of rules, whether the candidates, who secured the degree through distance education are eligible, etc. This is the information which the Public Authority is under obligation to voluntarily disclose under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and place the same in the web site.” [Sections 4(1)(b) and 20; Appointment]
• CIC Decision dated 12.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Hemant Dhage Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC, inter-alia, decided: “33. ….. the Commission declares that the office of the Minister for Law as public authority under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, and under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) require the Government of India to appoint a Central Public Information Officer to answer the information requests of the citizen and publish the information as per Section 4(1)(b) including facility of meeting people.
  34.    The Commission strongly recommends to implement the recommendations of NCRWC, Second ARC and replace the ‘oath of secrecy’ with ‘oath of transparency” so that the Minister will respect the right to information of the citizen, which was passed by the Parliament and considered as fundamental right intrinsic in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and be answerable/accountable to the citizens.” [Sections 2(h), 4(1)(b), 8(1), 8(2), 19(8) and 22; Appointment with Minister]
• CIC Decision dated 08.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Bipin Kumar Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal – CIC: “… without commenting upon the merits of the present appeal, the Commission deems it expedient to set aside the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the first appellate authority of BBMB. It is directed that the FAA shall decide the first appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.” (First Appellate Authority, Burden of Proof)
• CIC Decision dated 24.02.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Anil Sood Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Election), Govt. of NCT of Delhi – CIC: “It is not proper on the part of public authority to suppress the information on such vital aspects, inspite of CIC Order. Commission recommends that most of the information as sought by the appellant should have been published under section 4(1)(b), accordingly, there should be proper updating of section 4(1)(b). Commission directs public authority to take necessary steps to update the official website with such information at regular intervals.” [Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b); Voters List]
• CIC Decision dated 23.02.2016 on Complaint/Appeal filed by Shri Dinesh Chandra Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi – The CIC, inter alia, decided that in the event of non-receipt of response (of the CPIO) within the stipulated period, the Commission shall proceed with the penalty proceedings, in due course of law, on the basis of information available on record. [Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b); Voters List]
• CIC Decision dated 08.02.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Office, Raigad – CIC: “… … the RTI Act does not require the public authority to retain records for indefinite period. The information needs to be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority.” [Sections 8(3), 19(8)] 
• CIC Decision dated 15.01.2016 – Abne Ingty vs. CPIO, Delhi University, New Delhi  – The CIC, inter alia, directed all the Universities in India, including deemed Universities and all examining bodies to provide copies of answer sheet only at a cost of Rs 2 per page and make necessary changes to their respective notifications accordingly as soon as possible but not beyond 30 days. [Sections 4(1), 7, 8(1)(d), 18(1)(d), 19(8)(a) & 22 of RTI Act and Rule 4 of the Fee & Cost Rules]

2015

• CIC Decision dated 16.12.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Maniram Sharma, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan Vs. Min. of Communication & IT, NIC, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) – The CIC, inter alia, decided that as per appellant’s request the NIC shall compile the GOI Web Directory at the earliest in larger public interest and all public authorities concerned shall expeditiously provide the necessary data to NIC to complete the task. [Sections 2(j), 4, 7(6), 8, 10, 11 & 24 of the RTI Act, Section 4 of the Public Records Act, Sections 43 & 72 of the IT Act, Art. 51 of the Constitution]
  * CIC Decision dated 11.12.2015 on Appeal from Smt. Mukesh Devi, Distt. Alwar Vs. CPIO, Office of DG, CISF Camp, New Delhi – CIC: “…. the Commission would like the CISF to consider the request of the complainant and provide information to the extent possible to the appellant. (Section 24(1), Exempt Organisation)
  * CIC Decision dated 09.12.2015 on Appeal from Dr. A.L. Agarwal Vs. Delhi University The CIC, inter alia, ordered that “Public authority should read Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 along with the rules made under this Act and circulars of DoPT which specifically direct them to provide a copy of sexual harassment complaint to charged officer.” [Section 8(1)(e),(g) and (j), Complaint of Sexual Harassment]
  * CIC Decision dated 30.11.2015 on Appeal from Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas & Shri V. Sundaram Vs. CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai (Full Bench Decision) (Public Interest)
  * CIC Decision dated 27.11.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Kheri (UP) Vs. CPIO, Department of Posts, Kheri – CIC: “After hearing submissions of both the parties the Commission directs the CPIO to provide copy of the investigation report regarding the account(s) of the appellant & his family members …” (Investigation Report, Post Office Accounts)
  * CIC Decision dated 27.11.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Kunjan Tripathi, Distt. Kanpur (Dehat) Vs. CPIO, Department of Posts, Kanpur – CIC: “The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters.” (RTI not appropriate forum for redressal of grievances/disputes).
  * CIC Decision dated 09.11.2015 on Appeal from Shri R.K. Jain Vs. Delhi University – CIC: “The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, considers that it is a case where the CPIO returned the original RTI application along with the IPO, which means a total and complete refusal to act under the provisions of RTI Act, which appears to be a serious breach of RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to explain and show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him and why compensation should not be granted to the appellant and disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.”
  * CIC Decision dated 21.10.2015 on Appeal from Mr. David George Thomas Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests – The Commission directed the respondent public authority, inter alia, to explain reasons for this non-publication of policy related information about Solar Thermal projects as mandated by Section 4(1) of RTI Act, to explain why adequate compensation should not be given to the appellant, and to provide necessary training to CPIOs to understand their duties under Environment Protection Act, RTI Act, duties as the CPIO representing the entire public authority. [Sections 4(1)(d) & (e)]
  * CIC Decision dated 15.10.2015 on Appeal from Shri Durga Prasad Kushwaha, Katni Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jabalpur – The Commission held that the attendance in respect of employees of public authority is disclosable information and the CPIO was directed to provide computerized attendance sheet in respect of the former Branch Manager, LIC, for the specified period in 2013, severing any personal information like the reason of leave/not attending etc. [Sections 8(1)(e),(g) & (j)]
  * CIC Decision dated 23.09.2015 on Appeal from Indian Technomac Company Ltd., New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi – CIC: “However, the crux of the matter is that the information should have been sought by a citizen in his individual capacity. ….. in the instant case, there is no doubt whatsoever that M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. were the RTI applicant, the Appellant before the FAA and are the Appellant before the Commission. As a legal entity, they cannot seek information under the RTI Act.” (Sections 8(1)(d) & (e), 19)
  * CIC Decision dated 11.09.2015 on Appeal from Shri Biswamber Nayak Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, New Delhi – Batra Hospital is covered under the RTI Act. [Section 2(h)]
  * CIC Decision dated 07.09.2015 on Appeal from Shri Sultan Singh Vs. PIO, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – The Commission directed the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Department Head Quarters (Delhi), inter alia, to explain to the appellant and the Commission what measures they have taken to correct the unconstitutionally given caste certificates to Chamars as “Jatavs”, etc., since 2011 till today, and when do they start certifying the applicants with their original caste names. (SC Certificate)
  * CIC Decision dated 13.08.2015 on Appeal from Shri Sunhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. PIO, Min. of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, New Delhi – CIC: The Commission directed the respondent officer to provide complete information for points 7 and 8 of the RTI application together with related documents free of cost … The Commission also directed the CPIO/PMO and CPIO/DOPT to provide information sought, appear before the Commission to report compliance to the Commission. [Sec. 7(6), 8(1) (e) and (j), 11] 
  * CIC Decision dated 10.08.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Chandratan, Ahmedabad Vs. CPIO, Office of Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Surat – CIC: The appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought was for larger public purpose. [Sec. 8(1)(j), Larger Public Interest] 
  * CIC Decision dated 03.08.2015 – Ms. Poonam Kumari, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commssion, New Delhi – CIC: The Commission directed the CPIO to communicate the reason for non-selection of the candidate. 
  * CIC Decision dated 15.06.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO & Dy.DG, Deptt. of Posts, New Delhi – CIC: He (Appellant) has suggested that IPO should be made ‘payable at par’ at all post offices without mentioning the name of the paying post office. The appellant’s suggestion carries merit and the postal authorities should look into the same and send an appropriate response to him within 6 weeks.
  * CIC Decision dated 03.06.2015 on Appeal filed by Rakhee Marwah Vs. PIO, SDM (Saket), New Delhi – CIC: The Commission found reasonable grounds to inquire (as provided under Section 19(2) of RTI Act) into the matter of issuing income certificate to a person, and into the allegation of suppressing the file, partly in the beginning and some part even now, and furnish report to the Commission within 30 days. The Commission also directed the respondent authority to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 to the appellant, for denying and harassing the appellant by not giving information in stipulated time on the pretext of missing file.
  * CIC Decision dated 29.05.2015 on Appeal filed by Shri H.K. Sehgal Vs. Delhi Jal Board – CIC: The Commission directed the respondent authority to evolve an online grievance redressal mechanism and redress the same within 25 days. The Commission also advised the Public Authority to take mobile number and e­mail ID of the consumers, so that they can communicate about the dues, payments, non­payments, etc. through SMS or e­mail.
  * CIC Decision dated 30.04.2015 on Appeal from Surender Vishwakarma Vs. Department of Justice, GOI, New Delhi – CIC: The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, observes that the information sought by the appellant is from the year 1952 to 2015 that is for 63 years which is very unreasonable as the same is very voluminous. The appellant ….. could not convince the Commission why he needs this huge information. The Commission, therefore, does not interfere with the FAA order and dismisses the appeal. (Voluminous Information)
  * CIC Decision dated 13.04.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Jyoti Arora Vs. Pusa Polytechnic, Delhi – The Commission directed the PIO/DTTE to inform the reasons for delay in giving the appellant the selection grade and also provide complete correspondence between the respondent and the DTTE within 15 days The Commission also directed to show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on them for not giving complete information to the appellant. (Disclosure of Reasons)
  * CIC Decision dated 10.04.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Jyoti Jeena Vs. Institue of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Delhi – CIC: “Hence, the Commission holds that there is a larger public interest that require disclosure of medical records of a patient as mandated under Section 8(1)(j) and directs the respondent authority to furnish the information about the medical records of her husband to the extent ….” (Sections 2,3,4,6(2),7,8,11,18,19, Right to Privacy, Larger Public Interest)
  *  CIC Decision dated 31.03.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shantaram Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission directed the FAA, Life Insurance Corporation to issue instructions to all the Divisional Offices for charging correct premium in this regard under intimation to the Commission.
  * CIC Decision dated 19.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Dharampal, Gurgaon Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Gurgaon – The Commission directed the department to compensate the appellant by an amount of Rs.1000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. [Section 19(8)(b)].
  * CIC Decision dated 19.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Ram Kumar, Jaipur Vs. Controller of Communication Acts, Deptt. of Telecommunications, Shimla – The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. [Section 8(1)(j)]
  * DoPT Circular dated 17.03.2015 – Format for giving information to the applicants under RTI Act-seeking comments from public regarding
  * Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
  * CIC Decision dated 04.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Jitendra Anandrao Chauhan, Kolhapur Central Prison Vs. Department of Posts, New Delhi –  The Department of Posts has been requested to look into the issue and take appropriate steps to provide access to PIN code to prisoners lodged in various jails. (Larger Public Interest)
  * CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (Non-Disclosure Agreement, Section 10) * CIC Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (Voluminous Records, Section 10) * CIC Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi [Section 5(4)] * CIC Decision dated 20.02.2015 on Appeal from Suresh Chander Gupta Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi – The Commission directed the CPIO of MoEF to, inter alia, perform their obligation under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005, and to furnish the reasons for formulating the policy of not imposing any restrictions and instead permitting the DDA to go ahead with unrestricted installation of Mobile Towers in the lands of DDA, in spite of recommendations against. The Commission also recommended the Chief Minister’s Office and office of Lieutenant Governor to probe into the reasons for ignoring these vital reports and their recommendations about the adverse effects of EMF from Mobile Towers and also to inform the people as to what measures they would initiate in response to the recommendations of the Inter Ministerial Group or if they have rejected the recommendation, the reasons and grounds for the same. (Sections 4(1)(c)&(d)/Disclosure of Reasons) * CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c)/Disclosure of Reasons) * O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars
  * Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant) * Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10] * CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case. * CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.” * Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15) * CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Mr. M. Mahadevappa Vs. CPIO & DGM (HR/Admn.), BSNL, Mysore – “The appellant has not succeeded in demonstrating that the information asked for by him is in larger public interest. It being so, there is no need to interfere with the respondent’s decision.” [Section 8(1)(j)] * CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)]  * CIC Decision dated 16.01.2015 on Appeal from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission require the Chief Secretary of Delhi and Union Cabinet Secretary to disclose their policy on this issue under Section 4 of Right to Information Act and also inform the appellants about their proposed steps to implement recommendation of Lokayuktha of Delhi in effectively preventing photo publicity of the political rulers.” * CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA. * CIC Decision dated 08.01.2015 on Complaint from Ms. Sakshi Jain Vs. GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi [Sections 7(9), 18 & 20)] * CIC  Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public.

2014

• CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)] * CIC Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …” * CIC Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.” “… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.” * Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.” * Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.” * Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.” * Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.” Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage. * Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant. * Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside. * Decision dated 07.01.2014 – Ms. Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General) Department, Govt. of Delhi – CIC: Wife has right to know husband’s salary.

2013

• Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal  – Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
• Delhi HC Judgement dated 28.10.2013 – J.K. Mittal Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr.  – Section 18 – Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided: “… it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought.”
• Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 – Union of India Vs. Anita Singh – Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
• Decision dated 14.10.2013 – Shri Rakesh Agarwal, New Delhi Vs. Transport Department (GNCT), Delhi – CIC has imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the CPIO and has also recommended disciplinary action. * SC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 – Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others – Cooperative Societies not covered under the RTI Act

2012

• Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 – Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others – “…it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application.”