Laws, Courts & Judgments.

Transparency Over Silos: CIC Sets Strict Norms for RTI Information Transfer

In a recent decision that reinforces the spirit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reprimanded the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for providing "incomplete, vague, and misleading" replies to an applicant. The case, Bimla Devi vs MCD , highlights the legal imperative for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to ensure that RTI queries reach the appropriate departments, even if the information is not immediately held by their specific office.

The Paper Trail: A Dispute Over Demolition Protocols

The matter arose after the appellant, Bimla Devi, filed an RTI application in June 2023 seeking detailed information regarding the MCD’s procedures for handling complaints, specifically those concerning building demolitions in Ward 94. The appellant sought transparency on the rules governing the demolition of unauthorized structures and the accountability of officials in the process.

While the PIO initially claimed that certain procedural information regarding complaint handling did not fall under their domain, the Commission found this approach insufficient. The appellant, dissatisfied with the initial and amended responses, escalated the issue to the CIC, arguing that her statutory right to access information had been obstructed.

Legal Deadlock: The Scope of Section 5(4)

The core of the legal dispute revolved around Section 6(3) and Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that if a PIO does not possess the requested information, they are not merely empowered but legally obligated to either transfer the application to the correct department or actively seek assistance from the relevant officials to fulfill the request.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that the respondent failed to utilize these mechanisms, opting instead to provide a vague response that left the applicant in the dark. The Commission emphasized that the burden of bureaucratic coordination rests with the public authority, not the citizen seeking information.

Key Observations

The Commission’s ruling underscored the necessity of institutional accountability:

• "The reply given by the Respondent is incomplete, vague and misleading."
• "If the information sought by the Appellant is not available in their department, then the Respondent should have transferred the RTI application to the concerned department."
• "The Respondent has neither transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act nor assistance was sought as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act."
• "The Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned PIO w.r.t the information sought on point No. 2 of the RTI application."

The Mandate for Compliance

The CIC has issued a stern directive: the MCD must now procure the information regarding the Standard Operating Procedures for disposing of complaints and provide it to the appellant free of charge within four weeks. The order further warns that failure to comply will trigger a show-cause notice regarding the imposition of the maximum penalty under the RTI Act.

This decision serves as a significant precedent for citizens navigating the labyrinth of municipal administration. By affirming that departments cannot simply "pass the buck" by claiming ignorance of another department's records, the CIC has strengthened the accountability framework for public servants, ensuring that the transparency promised under the RTI Act is not eroded by internal bureaucratic silos.

As the MCD prepares to furnish the requested documents, the case stands as a reminder that the institutional duty to inform is non-delegable and requires diligent inter-departmental cooperation.