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

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

Certified Copies of Accounts, Agreement File and Measurement Book of Work Orders - CIC: PIO has provided a misleading reply even after the FAA directions; PIO admonished, warned and directed to send a revised reply furnishing the relevant information

Certified copy of Hindi language version of the affidavit of assets - PIO: Official language of Supreme Court of India is English, proceedings are in English, language for administrative purpose is also English - CIC: Follow the Supreme Court Rules 2013

Appellant sought copy of the final order awarding punishment to Sri Jayanti Suresh claiming that after disciplinary proceedings, the other individual was reinstated while he was not - CIC upheld the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

CIC: Disclose information on website pertaining to BOT package Indore to Kalghat Highway like scope of work, Amount allocated, Nature of Project, Time period for completion, Details of any extra work given to M/s Oriental Pathways Indore (Pvt. Ltd) etc.

CIC: Reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous; Explore the viability of updating information pertaining to list of petrol pumps functioning all over India and related issues regarding land requirement for allotment of petrol pump on website

CIC: As per the provisions of the RTI Act and OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015, the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply duly signed and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of the FAA

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

Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act

Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals

Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

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

CIC: As per the provisions of the RTI Act and OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015, the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply duly signed and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of the FAA

21 Aug, 2025

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“1. Inform applicant about date, month, year and time on which final order dated 12.11.2021 passed in aforesaid titled case was uploaded as per records maintained.

2. Inform applicant about date, month, year and time on which final order dated 12.11.2021 passed in aforesaid titled case came to digitally signed as per records maintained.

3. Provide me certified copy of approval letter of competent authority pursuant to which final order dated 12.11.2021 came to be uploaded and digitally signed passed in aforesaid titled case Provide me certified copy of reply and information as per para no.2 of OM No.10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 issued by Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi as per Annexure-B Page No. 3”

“1. Inform applicant about date, month, year and time on which final order dated 12.11.2021 passed in aforesaid titled case was uploaded as per records maintained.

2. Inform applicant about date, month, year and time on which final order dated 12.11.2021 passed in aforesaid titled case came to digitally signed as per records maintained.

The CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2024 replied as under:-

“Point No.1 & 2: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8651 of 2021 @ Diary No.4971 of 2020 was dismissed on 12.11.2021 by this Hon'ble Court and the Record of Proceedings was uploaded on 15.11.2021 at 11.58.39 hours after digitally signing the same as depicted.

Point No.3: The information sought for is presumptive in nature. Hence, no information.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.05.2024 stated as under:-

5) Heard the appellant telephonically and examined the relevant record. The appellant has tendered written submissions through emails dt. 27.04.2024 which are taken on record.

6) On examining the queries and the reply sent by CPIO, I am of the considered opinion that CPIO has appropriately answered the queries raised by the appellant and provided the information as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 The CPIO has furnished the information as is available and maintained.

7) The requisite information has properly been communicated to the appellant. The reply sent by CPIO is appropriate and does not require any further addition or further elaboration. There appears no error or illegality in the same, hence, no interference is called for.

8) Viewed in the context of what has been stated above, there appears no substance and/or merit in the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

PIO vide letter dated 13.05.2025 placed on record copy of two emails dated 18/05/2024 and copy of reply email dated 11/06/2024. The relevant extract of the letter is as under:

“..With reference to the Second Appeal notice of hearing dated 24/04/2025 in Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/117161 to be listed on 21/05/2025 at 11:55 AM, please find enclosed herewith the following document, which has not been attached with the Second Appeal Notice and concerning this Public Authority, for kind consideration: 1. Copy of two emails dated 18/05/2024 in Dy. No. 3712A/RTI/23- 24/SCI 2. Copy of reply email dated 11/06/2024 of the CPIO, SCI in Dy. No. 3712A/RTI/23-24/SCI (a/w Sending Report)..”

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing.

Respondent: Ms. Himani Sarad, Addl. Registrar/CPIO and Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocate– participated in the hearing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished by the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. She further stated that the reply furnished by the PIO is not in consonance with provision of RTI Act. She stated that the PIO has not provided certified attested copy of reply nor has provided certified, authentic, attested copy of documents/information. She stated that the reply furnished by the PIO is without rounded seal & stamp which is clear violation of OM No.10/ 1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015 as issued by the DoPT.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Appellant. As regards the point No. 3 of the RTI Application, the PIO stated that the information sough is not available in their records and same has been duly informed to the Appellant. She further stated that the reply furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.04.2024, Dy. No. 3712/RTI/23-24/SCI has been duly signed by the PIO and name and designation of the PIO was also mentioned in the reply. Furthermore, details of FAA have also been provided in their reply dated 06.04.2024 as per the provision of the RTI Act and guidelines mentioned in OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that ‘information’ as defined in the section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.

As regard the contention of the Appellant that reply/information as furnished by the PIO is not a certified copy and same is without rounded seal & stamp in violation of the guidelines mentioned in OM No.10/1/2O13- IR dated 06.10.2015, the Commission is of the view that as per the provisions of the RTI Act and OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015, the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply which is duly signed by the PIO and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of FAA. In addition, it is observed that aforementioned essential details have been duly provided by the PIO in their reply dated 06.04.2024, Dy. No. 3712/RTI/23-24/SCI. It is noted that it has not been mentioned in the OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015 that certified copy of the reply with a rounded seal should be provided to the RTI Applicant.

It is worthwhile to mention that the second part of the OM No.10/1/2O13- IR dated 06.10.2015 on which Appellant is relying upon, relates only to the cases wherein RTI Applicant has sought 'certified copies' of the documents or records. The relevant extract of the aforementioned OM No.10/1/2O13-IR is as under:

“..2. In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority; as enumerated below..”

Commission observes that in the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought certified copy of the document only at point No. 3 of the RTI Application in response to which it has been clearly mentioned by the PIO that no such document exists in their record.

In view of foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the reply dated 06.04.2024 as provided by the PIO is legally appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Neha Chawla v. Supreme Court of India, CIC/SCOFI/A/2024/117161; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025

CIC: As per the provisions of the RTI Act and OM No.10/1/2O13-IR dated 06.10.2015, the PIO is supposed to furnish a reply duly signed and same should essentially contain name and designation of the PIO as well as necessary details of the FAA

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.