A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant: I have submitted my personal application to PMO and without hearing of witness or awaiting outcome representation, I was fired from Air Force - CIC: PIO has provided the information which is available on record; No further intervention needed

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for the year 2020-21

7 Mar, 2022

I Trends with regard to rejection of RTIs in the Central Public Authorities; and

II Trends with regard to rejections in the Union Territories (UTs)

I Trends with regard to rejection of RTIs in the Central Public Authorities

With a 2.95% dip in the number of RTI applications filed across Central public authorities during the pandemic year, it is only obvious that the proportion of RTI applications being rejected will also go down. So, several Ministries have reported significant dips in rejections. However, while looking at the woods, it is also important to not miss out on the trees. In the absence of trees there will be no woods to look at, after all. So micro-level examination of the rejection-related data including clause-wise rejection statistics provides a more complex picture of the manner in which RTI applications were handled across ministries and departments during the pandemic year.

For example, merely focusing on total figures with regard to rejections, will make a reader completely oblivious to the fact that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution rejected 401 RTI applications in the pandemic year by invoking the national security exemption provided for in Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act. Overall, the use of the national security exemption to reject RTI applications increased by more than 83% during the pandemic year. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare employed several exemption clauses including the exemption to Cabinet papers, which it hardly used in the past, to reject scores of RTI applications in 2020-21. The Ministry of Labour and Employment recorded a doubling of rejections under Section 24 of the RTI Act, despite not having any exempt intelligence or security organisation under its jurisdiction. Similarly, the UT of Delhi recorded more than 644% increase in rejections during the pandemic year in comparison with its performance in 2019-20, even though the proportion of rejections was only 1.79% of the total number of RTI applications processed that year. The narrative portion of the CIC’s AR does not contain any discussion about these developments noticeable from the data submitted by these ministries and departments. Hence this in-depth examination of the data relating to rejections. In addition to what I pointed out as the macro-level trends in my previous email alert circulated three days ago, the following trends are noticeable from the rejections-related data.

A) Rejection trends across key Ministries and public authorities

(covering only permissible exemptions under Sections 8, 9,11 and 24 of the RTI Act and excluding “Others” category)

i) If one takes into account those ministries and departments with a significant number of rejections, only seven indicate considerable reduction whereas 11 of them have actually reported a hike in the number of rejections during the pandemic year as compared with the 2019-20 figures.

ii) For example, the seven ministries which reported a fall in rejections are as follows: the Ministry of Finance- from 17,928 in 2019-20 to 13,657 in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Defence- from 2,0 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. in 2019-20 to 1,854 during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which is the nodal ministry for implementing the RTI Act at the Central level- from 1,288 in 2019-20 to 1,023 in 2020-21. The proportion of rejections reduced by around 50% in the following: the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas- from 1,127 in 2019-20 to 545 during the pandemic year and the Ministry of Human Resource Development- from 874 in 2019-20 to 496 in 2020-21.

iii) The number of rejections in the Supreme Court of India also more than halved- from 381 cases in 2019-20 to 152 in the pandemic year. The Delhi Police reported a much lower figure of 1,489 rejections in 2020-21 as compared with 1,778 cases in the previous year.

iv) However the Ministries which reported a significant rise in the number of rejections are as follows: The Ministry of Steel recorded a 2,457% increase in rejections- from only 14 cases in 2019-20 to 358 cases during the pandemic year; The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution reported a 2,003% increase in rejections- from 26 cases in 2019-20 to 547 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Railways reported more than 767% rise in rejections in the pandemic year- from 84 cases in 2019-20 to 729; the Ministry of External Affairs recorded a 356% rise in rejections in the pandemic year- from 198 cases in 2019-20 to 904 cases.

v) Other Ministries which reported a significant increase in rejections but of a lesser magnitude than those mentioned immediately above are: the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare- 76% increase in rejections- from 412 cases in 2019-20 to 727 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs recorded only 129 rejections in 2019-20 but it increased to 213 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Power reported only 102 rejections in 2019-20 but it went up to 159 cases in the pandemic year. Other Ministries which recorded a marginal increase in rejections are: the Ministry of Labour and Employment- from 368 cases in 2019-20 to 375 cases in 2020-21 and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting- from 44 cases in 2019-20 to 60 cases during the pandemic year. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s Office reported a higher number- 82 rejections in the pandemic year whereas there were only 58 rejections in 2019-20.

B) Trends with regard to rejections under “Others” Category”

As pointed out in my previous email alert, the dubious category- “Others” continues to be used by ministries, departments and public authorities for rejecting RTI applications during the pandemic year as well. However, the macro-level figures show a decline of 28.15% in the use of “Others” category- while it was used in 24,059 cases in 2019-20, it was used in only 17,286 cases during the pandemic year. However, to remain complacent with these macro-trends also amounts to missing the trees for the woods. The following trends are visible across ministries, departments and key public authorities with regard to the use of the “Others” category for rejecting RTI applications.

i) A large number ministries, departments and public authorities reported a significant decline in the use of “Others” category to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. This is a welcome development indeed. Notable among them are: the Ministry of Finance- from 10,081 cases in 2019-20 to 5,278 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Railways- from 1,607 cases in 2019-20 to 577 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas- from 460 cases in 2019-20 to 202 cases in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Home Affairs- from 737 cases in 2019-20 to 441 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry for Defence - from 1,694 cases in 2019-20 to 1,375 cases in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions- from 633 cases in 2019-20 to 489 cases in 2020-21; Delhi Police- from 563 cases in 2019-20 to 364 cases in the pandemic year; the Prime Minister’s Office- from 550 cases in 2019-20 to 423 cases in 2020-21; the Supreme Court of India- from 248 cases in 2019-20 to 160 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Communications- from 1,034 cases in 2019-20 to 797 cases in the pandemic year; and the Ministry of Commerce- from 85 cases in 2019-20- to only 12 cases in 2020-21.

ii) However, several Ministries and public authorities reported a significant increase in the use of “Others’ category to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. For example, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reported a 1,410% increase- from 10 cases in 2019-20 to 151 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of External Affairs recorded a 537% increase- from a mere 61 cases in 2019-20 to 389 cases in 2020-21; the Comptroller and Auditor General reported an almost three-fold increase in the use of this category- from 108 cases in 2019-20 to 303 cases in 20202-1; the Ministry of Labour and Employment- from 1,871 cases in 2019-20 to 2,429 cases during the pandemic year; Ministry of Textiles- from 111 cases in 2019-20 to 147 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution- from 64 cases in 2019-20 to 88 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Panchayati Raj- from 36 cases in 2019-20 to 79 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology- from 62 cases in 2019-20 to 109 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs- from 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. cases in 2019-20 to 85 cases in 2020-21; and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports- from 15 cases in 2019-20 to 39 cases during the pandemic year. The use of this category in the UT of Delhi is examined separately below.

The CIC has not bothered to examine this phenomenon of the continued use of “Others” category to reject RTI applications, year after year, in the narrative portion of its AR.

C) Trends with regard to clause-wise rejections

i) Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. : As has always been the case, Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act which protects personal information of an individual and prohibits disclosure that may cause unwarranted invasion of the individual’s privacy, is the most frequently used of permissible exemptions during the pandemic year. Central level public authorities invoked this clause to reject 34.44% of the RTI applications in 2020-21- a marginal increase over the 2019-20 figure of 34.01%;

ii) Most Ministries reported a major decline in the use of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. during the pandemic year. For example, its use fell by almost 50% in the Supreme Court of India (from 142 cases in 2019-20 to 72 cases in 2020-21). Public authorities under the Ministry of Finance which account for the most frequent use of this exemption year after year, also reported a drastic reduction in usage- from 7,528 cases in 2019-20 to 5,210 cases in 2020-21. Delhi Police also reported a major reduction in the employment of this exemption- from 641 cases in 2019-20 to only 470 cases in 2020-21. The use of this exemption halved in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas- from 415 cases in 2019-20 to 208 cases during the pandemic year;

iii) Bucking this trend, public authorities under the Ministry of External Affairs reported a five-fold increase in the use of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. during the pandemic year. It rose to 681 cases from 107 in 2019-20. Similarly, the Ministry of Steel had invoked this exemption in two cases only in 2019-20 but in the pandemic year it was invoked in 199 cases. The use of this exemption went up to 576 cases in 2020-21 in the Ministry of Railways whereas it was used only in 20 cases during the previous year. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution also reported use of this exemption in 142 cases during the pandemic year as compared to only 18 cases in 2019-20. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare used this exemption in 184 cases during the pandemic year whereas it was used in only 107 cases in 2019-20;

iv) Section 24: The next more frequently used ground for rejecting RTI applications was Section 24 under which the Central Government has exempted 25 security and intelligence organisations from ordinary obligations of transparency under the RTI Act unlike other public authorities. They are however, required to disclose information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Section 24 constituted 27.92% of the rejections during the pandemic year- an increase by more than 5.6% over the proportion reported in 2019-20 ( 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. .31%);

v) Public authorities under the Union Home Ministry such as the Intelligence Bureau and the Central Paramilitary Forces like Assam Rifles, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force etc. contributed 75.4% of instances of the use of Section 24 to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. This amounts to a 166% increase in the use of this exemption by public authorities under MHA during the pandemic year (7,631 cases) as compared to 2019-20 (2,869 cases). The CIC is silent about this development in the narrative portion of the AR;

vi) Public authorities under the Union Ministry of Finance also reported a 52.40% jump in the use of Section 24 during the pandemic year (1,015 cases) as compared with the previous year (666 cases). However, the Ministry of Labour and Employment which does not have any organisation exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act under its jurisdiction, reported a 120% increase in the use of this provision during the pandemic year. 331 RTI applications were rejected in 2020-21 as compared with only 150 cases the previous year. The CIC does not make any comment on this trend in the narrative portion of its AR;

vii) Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence reported a reduction in the use of Section 24 during the pandemic year (518 cases) as compared with the previous year (626 cases);

viii) Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; : This is the third most frequently used of exemptions during the pandemic year accounting for 11.78% of the total number of rejections. This is a 1.8% dip from the previous year (13.62%). Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; protects from disclosure, information which is in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure may harm the competitive position of a third party.

ix) Public authorities under the Ministry of Finance invoked Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; the most among all others during the pandemic year (3,129 cases) but this was much lower than the 2019-20 figure of 3,990 cases. Similarly, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas used this exemption in fewer cases during the pandemic year ( 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 6 cases) as compared with 2019-20 (395 cases).

x) However, the use of Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare nearly doubled from 39 cases in 2019-20 to 76 in 2020-21. In all probability this Ministry was employing this exemption to deny access to information relating to COVID-19 vaccine and purchase related issues. Interestingly, the Ministry of Steel invoked this exemption in 98 cases during the pandemic year whereas it was used only once in 2019-20. Similarly, NITI Aayog invoked Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; to reject 13 RTI applications during the pandemic year whereas it was used only five times in 2019-20.

xi) Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; : This is the fourth most frequently used of exemptions during the pandemic year accounting for 11.13% of the total number of rejections. This is a 1.54% dip from the previous year’s figure of 12.67%. Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; protects information available with a person in his fiduciary relationship (trust-based relationship such as that between lawyer-client, doctor-patient, spouses etc.) This is also one of the most frequently misused of exemptions because CPIOs have a tendency of invoking it to protect all kinds of information held in confidence by the public authority or which is marked “top secret”, “secret” or “confidential”.

xii) The use of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; was most frequent among public authorities under the Ministry of Finance during the pandemic year. However, its use fell from a high of 3,447 cases in 2029-20 to 2,918 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the use of this exemption fell from 167 cases in 2019-20 to 67 cases in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Its use more than halved in the Ministry of Human Resource Development- from 1 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. cases in 2019-20 it came down to 50 cases in the pandemic year. Its use fell drastically in the Ministry of Communications also- from 193 in 2019-20 to 63 cases in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption in the Supreme Court of India also reduced by more than half during the pandemic year from 115 cases in 2019-20 it came down to only 42 in 2020-21.

xiii) However, the use of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; witnessed a significant increase in the Ministry of Steel. While it was not invoked at all in 2019-20 it was used to reject 15 RTI applications in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption more than doubled in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs- from 21 cases in 2019-20 to 50 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also reported an increase in the use of this exemption- from 199 cases in 2019-20 it went up to 231 cases in the pandemic year. Its use increased from 89 cases in 2019-20 to 110 cases in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Defence as well.

xiv) Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; : This clause which exempts the disclosure of information to prevent impediments to investigation, fair trial and apprehension of offenders was invoked in 5.90% of the cases during the pandemic year. Interestingly, the use of this exemption clause almost halved from the level of 11.36% in 2019-20.

xv) The Ministry of Finance which recorded the highest use of Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; in public authorities under its jurisdiction actually witnessed a significant reduction in actual figures i.e., from 798 in 2019-20 to 706 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also saw a noticeable fall in the use of this exemption- from 686 cases in 2019-20 to 609 cases in the pandemic year. The Delhi Police also reported a fall from 680 cases in 2019-20 to 608 cases in 2020-21. In the Ministry of Defence the use of this exemption fell by a third from 102 cases in 2019-20 to 31 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare also reported a reduction- from 57 cases in 2019-20 to 12 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension also reported a fall from 198 cases in 2019-20 to 161 cases in 2020-21.

xvi) However, some Ministries reported a significant rise in the use of Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; to deny access to information in the pandemic year. For example, use of this exemption more than doubled in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs- from 17 cases in 2019-20 to 36 in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Railways invoked this exemption only once in 2019-20 but it did so in 16 cases in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption increased from five cases in 2019-20 to 18 cases in the Ministry of External Affairs during the pandemic year. The Ministry of Power also reported a doubling of use from 7 cases in 2019-20 to 16 cases in 2020-21.

xvii) Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; : Despite accounting for less than 3% of the total number of rejections this exemption related to national security in Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act (i.e, prejudicial effect on the sovereignty, territorial integrity, defence, strategic, scientific and economic interests and foreign relations of the State and use of information for incitement to commit an offence) reported a significant rise in use during the pandemic year. While this national security exemption accounted for only 1.46% cases in 2019-20 it accounted for 2.82% cases in the pandemic year. This exemption was invoked in 1,024 cases in 2020-21 as compared to only 557 cases in 2019-20- more than 83% increase.

xviii) With 401 cases, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution accounted for almost 40% of the use of Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; during the pandemic year, across Central public authorities. This Ministry had not invoked this exemption even once in 2019-20. Unlike the Ministries of Home, Defence and External Affairs, this Ministry’s work allocation does not include national security-related matters. In its narrative report, the CIC has not bothered to examine why this Ministry has reported such a high number of rejections under this clause. The use of Section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; more than doubled in the Ministry of Defence- from 157 cases in 2019-20 to 317 in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of External Affairs also reported a big jump in the use of this exemption- from 36 cases in 2019-20 to 1 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. in 2020-21. The Ministry of Railways used this exemption in 7 cases in the pandemic year but had not invoked it at all in 2019-20. The Department of Space invoked this exemption in 14 cases in 2020-21 as compared to six cases during the previous year.

xix) The Ministry of Finance reported almost 50% reduction in the use of this national security exemption in the pandemic year. It fell from 141 cases in 2019-20 to 79 cases in 2020-21. The Department of Space reported a reduction- from 43 cases in 2019-20 to 19 during the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also reported reduced use of this exemption in 2020-21. It fell to 12 cases from 38 reported in 2019-20.

xx) Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; : This exemption which relates to endangering the life and safety of an individual of revealing the identity of informants who assist law enforcement agencies was used in 1.69% cases during the pandemic year. This is a significant fall from the level of 2.47% reported in 2019-20.

xxi) The Ministry of Finance reported a fall in the use of Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; from 378 cases in 2019-20 to 260 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also reported a fall from 167 cases in 2019-20 to 70 cases in 2020-21. Delhi Police invoked this exemption in 156 cases only in 2020-21 as compared to 61 cases during the previous year. The use of this exemption fell by more than a third in the Ministry of Defence- from 28 cases in 2019-20 to 10 cases in 2020-21. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions also reported almost 50% reduction in the use of this exemption- from 81 cases in 2019-20 to 43 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Human Resource Development also reported a more than 50% reduction in the use of this exemption- from 79 cases in 2019-20 to 31 cases in 2020-21.

xxii) The Ministry of External Affairs reported an increase- from six cases in 2019-20 to 18 in the pandemic year. So did the Ministry of Power- from 7 cases in 2019-20 to 16 cases in the pandemic year and the Ministry of Railways- from 1 case only in 2019-20 to 16 cases in 2020-21. The Ministry of Steel invoked this exemption in 7 cases during the pandemic year but had not used it even once in 2019-20. The Department of Atomic Energy also reported an increase- from 10 cases in 2019-20 to 14 cases in 2020-21.

xxiii) Section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; : The exemption relating to Cabinet papers and deliberations of officials involved in the decision making process covered by Section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; was also used fewer times in the pandemic year. Its use fell from 1.82% of the cases in 2019-20 to 1.05% of the cases in 2020-21.

xxiv) The use of Section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; more than halved down in the Ministry of Finance- from 394 cases in 2019-20 to 124 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions reported a drastic reduction in the use of this exemption- from 110 cases in 2019-20 to 56 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers did not use this exemption at all in the pandemic year whereas it had invoked it 23 times during the previous year. In the Ministry of Communications, use of this exemption fell from 59 cases in 2019-20 to 28 cases during the pandemic year;

xxv) The use of Section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; increased considerably in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare- from NIL cases in 2019-20 to 36 cases in the pandemic year. So also with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting- from NIL in 2019-20 to 9 cases in 2020-21. Both Steel Ministry and the Department of Atomic Energy used this exemption in 2 cases each in 2019-20 but invoked it in 14 cases each in the pandemic year to deny access to information. Use of this exemption went up from one case in 2019-20 to 7 cases during the pandemic year in the Ministry of Human Resource Development.

xxvi) Section 8(1)(f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information received in confidence from foreign Government; : The use of this exemption relating to information received in confidence for foreign governments also fell from 1.10% in 2019-20 to 0.80% in 2020-21. Its use fell by more than 63% from 214 cases in 2019-20 to 78 cases in the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, the use of this exemption fell from 31 cases in 2019-20 to 20 in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs did not use this exemption even once during the pandemic year though it had invoked it in 10 cases to deny information in 2019-20.

xxvii) The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reported a three-fold increase in the use of Section 8(1)(f) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information received in confidence from foreign Government; in the pandemic year- 107 cases as compared to 33 cases in 2019-20. Strangely, the CIC’s AR is silent on this significant development. The Ministry of Defence reported use of this exemption in 21 cases in 2020-21 as compared with 12 cases only in 2019-20. Use of this exemption in the Ministry of External Affairs also increased from 9 cases in 2019-20 to 20 cases in the pandemic year.

xxviii) Section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; : The use of this exemption relating to contempt of court or where the disclosure of information is expressly barred by Courts fell from 0.51% in 2019-20 to 0.20 % in the pandemic year. The Supreme Court of India invoked this exemption in only six cases in the pandemic year as compared with 97 cases in 2019-20. Similarly, the Ministry of Finance used this exemption only 9 times in 2020-21 though it has invoked it in 60 cases in 2019-20. The use of this exemption in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs also fell from 15 cases in 2019-20 to five cases in 2020-21. However, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was a significant exception to this trend as use of Section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; increased from just one case in 2019-20 to 28 cases in the pandemic year. The CIC has not chosen to comment on this significant development in its AR.

xxix) Section 8(1)(c): The use of this exemption, intended to protect parliamentary privilege, fell from 0.31% in 2019-20 to 0.12% in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Finance did not invoke this exemption even once in the pandemic year though it has used it in 36 cases in 2019-20. The use of this exemption fell from 20 cases in 2019-20 to only three during the pandemic year in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Interestingly, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare which had not used this exemption even once in 2019-20 invoked it in 30 cases to deny access to information in the pandemic year. The CIC has not chosen to comment on this significant development in its AR. The Ministry of Railways also invoked this exemption in two cases while it was NIL under this category in 2019-20.

xxx) Section 11: Section 11 of the RTI Act relates to procedures for dealing with requests for third party information which is treated as being confidential by such third party. This is not a standard exemption clause, unlike those listed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and applies only to information in the nature of trade or commercial secrets. Yet public authorities invoke it to reject RTI applications by simply claiming that the information sought relates to third parties without fully understanding the import of that provision. During the pandemic year, the use of Section 11 fell across Central public authorities to 1.47% from 1.88% reported in 2019-20. The use of this clause nearly halved in the Ministry of Finance- from 182 in 2019-20 to 93 in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Labour reported use of this clause in only two cases as compared with 81 rejections in 2019-20. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas used this clause in 7 cases only in the pandemic year as compared with 26 rejections in 2019-20.

xxxi) However, use of this clause spiked in the Ministry of Railways to 31 in the pandemic year though it was NIL in 2019-20. The Ministry of Home Affairs reported rejections under this clause in 98 cases in 2020-21 while it was used in 65 cases only during the previous year. In the Ministry of Communications use of this clause more than doubled to 43 cases in the pandemic year as compared with 21 cases in 2019-20. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology also reported increased use of this clause- from 17 cases in 2019-20 to 26 in the pandemic year.

xxxii) Section 9: Section 9 is a standalone exemption clause which protects private copyright. The use of this clause fell marginally, from 0.68% in 2019-20 to 0.63% in the pandemic year. The use of this clause fell drastically in the Ministry of Finance- from 94 cases in 2019-20 to 36 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Defence rejected RTI applications under this clause in only 39 cases in 2020-21 as compared with 50 cases during the previous year. However, the Delhi Police reported a significant spike in the use of this clause during the pandemic year- up to 70 cases from 54 in 2019-20. The use of this clause increased from 11 in 2019-20 to 16 cases in the Department of Atomic Energy. The Ministry of Steel which had not invoked this clause even once in 2019-20 used it in 10 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Railways invoked this clause in 9 cases in 2020-21 whereas it was used only once during the previous year.

II Trends with regard to rejections in the UTs

Among the UTs, Delhi reported the highest proportion of rejections. At 1,816 rejections, this constitutes 1.79% of the total number of RTIs that were to be disposed of in the pandemic year (backlog plus fresh receipts). While row #7 of the CIC’s data table in Annexure I of the AR mentions 2,589 rejections accounting for 3% of the total, the breakups at the end of the data table add up to only 1,816 cases of rejections. That being said, it is important to note that the proportion of rejections under permissible categories of the RTI Act increased by 674.88% during the pandemic year. While the public authorities under the Delhi administration had rejected only 211 RTI applications in 2019-20 they reported rejections in 1,635 cases during the pandemic year. The CIC is silent about this significant development in the narrative portion of its AR. 94.4% of the rejections under permissible exemptions of the RTI Act were linked to Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act which protects personal information of an individual, from unwarranted invasion of his or her privacy. Interestingly, the frequency of use of the dubious “Others’ category came down from 444 cases in 2019-20 to 181 cases during the pandemic year- a drop of almost 60%.

Puducherry is the only UT which reported a marginal increase in rejections in the pandemic year- from 116 in 2019-20 to 132 in 2020-21. All other UTs reported a significant decline in the rejection rate. Lakshadweep did not report any rejection despite receiving 40.14% more RTI applications in the pandemic year as compared with 2019-20. Despite receiving more than 1,600 RTI applications during the pandemic year, Jammu and Kashmir reported rejections in six cases only all of which were under the dubious “Others” category. Interestingly, Chandigarh invoked Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; which exempts disclosure of information to prevent impediments to investigation, fair trial and apprehension of offenders more than Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. which protects personal information, in the pandemic year. Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; was invoked in 205 cases while Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. was invoked in 137 cases only.

End Note

Despite the marginal dip in the number of RTI applications during the pandemic year, the manner of use of exemptions does not appear to follow this trend in all cases. While public authorities under the Ministries of Finance who are conventionally known to invoke exemptions to reject RTI applications, more than others, reported reduction in rejections, key Ministries at the frontline of the efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic reported a major increase in rejections. Some of them used exemptions clauses which they used in earlier years to deny access to information. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution are notable illustrations of this trend. The latter invoked the national security exemption in hundreds of cases during the pandemic year. The Delhi Government reported a massive increase in the number of rejections during the pandemic year as compared with 2019-20. It is not possible to predict whether even a significant fraction of these cases will land up at the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the form of appeals and complaints. So there is a strong reason for the CIC to hold consultations with such Ministries and also public authorities under their jurisdiction to examine this trend and explore the correctness of such decisions to deny access to information.

Venkatesh Nayak

Analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for the year 2020-21

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.