CIC Cautions CPIOs on Providing RTI Reference Details in Appeals: Navneesh Kumar v. Punjab National Bank - 2026-06-06

Transparency Tussle: CIC Directs Banks to Streamline RTI Responses

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has addressed a twin-appeal dispute between petitioner Navneesh Kumar and the Punjab National Bank (PNB), reinforcing the necessity for procedural precision when handling Right to Information (RTI) requests. While the Commission ultimately found no scope to intervene in the substantive grievance, it issued a critical directive regarding the administrative transparency of Public Information Officers (CPIOs).

Background: The Dispute Over Data

The appellant, Navneesh Kumar, filed two RTI applications in early 2024 seeking detailed information regarding the internal processing of his complaints—specifically, a grievance filed via the PG portal—and the specific circumstances surrounding the rejection of a cheque, which the bank attributed to a "Non-KYC compliant" status. The appellant sought internal records, identity details of responsible officials, and evidence of correspondence between bank branches and his account.

Following the bank's initial silence on these applications and subsequent dissatisfactory responses during the appellate process, the matters were escalated to the CIC.

Arguments at the Commission

During the hearing, the respondent (Praveen Kumar, CPIO) defended the bank's position, asserting that a common response had been issued on July 5, 2024, addressing the identical nature of the queries across both RTI applications. The bank claimed that the issues had been resolved by updating the KYC status of the account on July 4, 2024, and maintained that no specific data existed for certain historical complaints.

The appellant, however, remained absent during the proceedings, leaving his initial claims to be adjudicated based solely on the records provided by the bank and the Commission's evaluation of the CPIO’s adherence to the RTI Act.

Key Observations

The Commission, presided over by Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, highlighted a recurring procedural lapse in how public authorities document their RTI responses. The order noted:

> "The CPIO is cautioned to give proper reference of RTI applications in their replies in order to avoid ambiguity in future."

Additionally, the Commission addressed the failure of communication between the parties, observing:

> "The respondent claimed to have responded to the RTI applications vide letter dated 05.07.2024, contrary to the appellant’s ground for the second appeal."

The Verdict: A Lesson in Procedural Clarity

Finding that the bank had eventually addressed the core of the appellant's queries and hindered by the appellant's failure to present his case in person to contest the bank’s submission, the CIC decided to dispose of the appeals.

The decision serves as a subtle but significant reminder to public institutions: procedural compliance under the RTI Act requires not just the provision of information, but also clear, reference-backed communication. By failing to include specific RTI application reference details, the respondent created unnecessary ambiguity, a practice the Commission has now clearly discouraged. For future cases, this ruling underscores that administrative efficiency is as vital as the transparency of the information itself.