A "Sordid Mockery": CIC Penalizes University Officials for RTI Defiance

In a sharp rebuke to the administrative culture at Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 each on three deemed Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for their "relentless and atrocious mockery" of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

An Institutional Failure

At the heart of this adjunct decision were 19 second appeals filed by Smt. Farahat Siddiqui, which the Commission clubbed for a consolidated ruling. The appellant had sought, among other things, her own salary details and action taken reports on complaints involving university staff.

During the hearing, the Commission observed a recurring pattern: the university's Nodal CPIO consistently failed to procure information from internal departments, while the "deemed" PIOs—some of whom hold academic positions as Professors—offered "absolutely preposterous" justifications for their inaction.

The Commission’s Scathing Verdict

Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam expressed profound dissatisfaction with the institution's lack of accountability. The Commission noted that the university officials had effectively treated the RTI Act as a barrier to transparency rather than a mandate.

"The relentless and atrocious mockery of the RTI Act being caused by the office bearers of Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya is insurmountable and is bringing absolute shame to the existence of this very public authority," the order read.

Key Observations

The Commission highlighted several critical issues within the university's RTI cell: * Deemed CPIOs' Inaction: The Commission noted that the CPIO often claimed his "hands were tied" because deemed PIOs failed to provide the requested information. * The 'Systemic' Issue: The CIC rebuked the university for lacking "a system of checks and balances," leading to a culture where CPIOs shift blame to deemed PIOs, and deemed PIOs deflect queries to other departments without verifying records. * The Paradoxical Plea: The Commission was particularly amused by the FAA’s defense, noting that the official sought advice from the CIC regarding a different individual (the appellant's husband) while failing to resolve the First Appeals at hand, which were within the FAA's statutory duty to decide.

The Penalty and Beyond

Confronted with repeated defiance of previous "caution notes," the Commission opted for stringent measures under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

> "The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that...[the appellant's queries] in effect, he has been asking for...voluminous data, which is another factor that works to his disadvantage...[However], the intense mockery of the RTI Act by the Respondent office bearers warrants strict action."

The Commission ordered the recovery of the penalty from the salaries of the deemed CPIOs—Uday Shrivastav, Prem Sagar Gujre, and Praveen Rathore—as well as the FAA, Dr. Satya Prakash Upadhyay. These amounts are to be remitted to the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, by July 2025.

Furthermore, the Commission ordered the university to provide the appellant with a composite, free-of-cost reply within 15 days, identifying information related to her own service matters and complaints. This decision serves as a stern reminder that statutory duties under the RTI infrastructure cannot be abandoned or ignored by public authorities, regardless of the perceived redundancy of applications.