The RTI Act, 2005 (the Act) requires the RTI applicant to file his RTI application whether online or offline with the concerned public authority. But many a times, the applicant does not know as to which public authority would hold the information required by him and files the RTI application to a wrong CPIO? Will the CPIO in such a case, return the RTI application claiming that the application does not pertain to his public authority?
The Act addresses such a situation. In case where the requested information is held by another public authority or subject matter of the application is more closely connected with functions of another public authority, then the application is to be transferred to such other public authority within 5 days of its receipt and the applicant is to be informed immediately about such transfer.[1].
Thus, if an RTI application is filed to a wrong CPIO, the Act provides 5 days to such a CPIO to transfer the RTI Application to the right CPIO. What happens if this five days period is not followed by the CPIO? In such a situation, the Information Commissioner can seek explanation from the CPIO for delay in transfer of the RTI application on the complaint of the RTI applicant.
Transferring an RTI Application is different from forwarding to another department:
What if a CPIO rather than providing the information merely forwards the RTI Application to another Department? This aspect has been examined by the Delhi High Court in a case[2] concerning the Ministry of Railways. In this case, the RTI applicant filed the RTI application with the CPIO of Railway Board seeking information interalia on the Garib Rath trains in all zones of the Railways. On not getting the requested information, the RTI applicant filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC directed the CPIO Railway Board to provide reply to the Complainant. The CPIO Railway Board transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to RDSO Lucknow. The RTI applicant thereafter filed an appeal before the CIC. During the hearing, it came out that RDSO Lucknow had provided information on point no.3 and other queries pertained to Railway Board. CIC directed the CPIO Railway Board to provide rest of the information to the Applicant. On still not getting information, the applicant filed more complaints on the ground that orders of the CIC were not complied with. CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the CPIO Railway Board. CPIO Railway Board petitioned Delhi High Court interalia contending that, the CPIO could not be held liable or responsible for not providing information since he had forwarded the RTI Application to the concerned departments. Delhi High Court held that:
“Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials”.
And dismissed the petition.
Transfer can lead to a flood of replies:
Transfer of the RTI application may also result in a peculiar situation for the applicant. Thus, recently, an RTI applicant from Madhya Pradesh got 3000 letters as replies to his RTI query. The applicant was quoted as saying that: “I filed an application with CBDT online on February 25, 2018 seeking consolidated details of top 50 persons who had defaulted in paying direct taxes. Besides, I sought to know about people whose direct tax had been written off in the last 10 years,” …”Instead of sending me a consolidated reply, the CBDT forwarded my application to IT offices across India. These IT offices have flooded me with more than 3,000 letters and 5-e-mails as replies in the last one year” [3].
It would thus be wise for a CPIO to obtain information from other CPIOs, if the information pertains to the same public authority and provide it to the applicant rather than forwarding it to the other CPIOs in the same public authority. As else, the situation of 3000 replies to one RTI Application may occur. This can only happen if there is a high ranking officer as a centralised CPIO with enough manpower and resources to obtain information from the departments located in other cities and then providing a consolidated reply to the applicant. But then, this exercise might delay the giving of information within the prescribed period of 30 days/48 hrs in case information concerns the life and liberty of a person.
It is to comply with these time lines that the public authorities appoint CPIOs at its offices/departments located in different cities.
Can the departments/offices of the same public authority be treated as different public authorities?
The departments/offices of the same public authority cannot be treated as a separate public authority for the purposes of Section 6(3) of the Act, as Section 6(3) speaks of transfer from one public authority to another and not within the same public authority. The Delhi High Court has already held that “…forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation….”
Can any officer other than the CPIO transfer the RTI application under Section 6(3)?
Many times, CPIOs do not transfer the RTI Application, rather some other officer does so. Section 6(3) states that the public authority shall transfer the RTI Application. The term of CPIO is not mentioned in Section 6(3). However, since the Act requires the RTI applicant to file the RTI application to the CPIO and the CPIO to dispose of the RTI application, transfer of the RTI application too being a form of disposal, the CPIO alone should transfer.
[1] Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005
[2] Ministry of Railways through Secretery & Anr vs. Girish Mittal, W.P.(c) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014, dated 12.09.2014
[3] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-man-gets-3-000-letters-as-replies-to-income-tax-rti-query-2005519
24 Comments
Comments are closed.