CPIOs Cannot Evade RTI Queries by Directing Applicants to Internal Grievance Mechanisms: Central Information Commission

Transparency vs. Evasion: Is Your Internal Grievance Mechanism a Shield Against RTI?

In a significant ruling for government employees and information seekers, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has clarified the limits of accountability for public authorities. Hon’ble Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam decisively held that public officials cannot simply deflect Right to Information (RTI) applications by directing applicants to use internal grievance redressal mechanisms instead of providing requested records.

The Conflict: Seeking Data or Challenging Policy?

The dispute involved a series of twenty clubbed appeals filed by employees of the Ordnance Factory, Bhusawal. The appellants sought specific information regarding recruitment advertisements, Statutory Rules and Orders (SROs), and circulars that impacted their transition to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Initially, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected these applications, arguing that since the information seeker was an employee, they should utilize internal mechanisms rather than using the "garb of RTI" to question the decisions of superior officers. The first appellate authority (FAA) upheld this stance, leading the employees to approach the Commission.

The Commission’s Reckoning

During the hearing, the Commission observed that the initial responses from the CPIO were "evasive and incorrect." While the CPIO eventually provided a more formal and satisfactory reply upon receiving the hearing notice, the Commission admonished the authorities for the initial delay and lack of transparency.

Commissioner Ramalingam reiterated that the CPIO’s role is not to act as a barrier but to provide information available in material form within their custody. Quoting the landmark Supreme Court decision in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay , the Commission drew a sharp line between legitimate information requests and attempts to gain administrative opinions.

Key Observations

The Commission highlighted the following principles to guide future RTI compliance:

• On Transparency: "The Commission observes that the initial response given by the CPIO in each case, is evasive and incorrect."
• On the Scope of RTI: "A public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires the drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions."
• On Professional Obligation: "It is not for an employee, howsoever he may be affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the competent authority. The disclosure of such information is not in the public interest." (Referencing the limitations of questioning administrative intent).

The Path Forward

The Commission concluded that while public authorities are not obligated to offer advice or opinions, they are strictly mandated to disclose documented facts. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to the FAA—in this case, identified as Shri Vineet Sharma—to apply due diligence and pass "speaking orders" rather than relying on standard rejections that undermine the RTI Act.

For the appellants, the door remains open for specific, well-drafted requests. They have been granted liberty to file fresh applications seeking specific file notations or written instructions regarding their recruitment, shifting the focus from challenging an administrative decision to obtaining the factual records behind it. This decision reinforces that while internal mechanisms have their place, they cannot be used as an institutional "wall" to block the fundamental right to information.