Public Authorities Cannot Deny RTI Queries by Directing Employees to Internal Grievance Mechanisms: CIC - 2026-06-06

Beyond Internal Redressal: CIC Reprimands Public Authority for Evasive RTI Denials

In a significant ruling addressing the rights of government employees to seek transparency, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, cannot be bypassed by directing applicants to internal grievance redressal mechanisms. Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam, presiding over a batch of 20 second appeals involving the Ordnance Factory Board, termed the initial, blanket denials by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) as "evasive and incorrect."

Case Background

The dispute originated when several employees of the Ordnance Factory, Bhusawal, filed RTI applications seeking information regarding their appointment statutes, recruitment circulars, and the details of their regret notices concerning a shift to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The public authority initially rejected these applications en masse. The CPIO argued that since the information seekers were employees within the same system, they should utilize internal mechanisms to redress their grievances, asserting that "employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information." This stance was upheld by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), prompting the appellants to knock on the doors of the CIC.

Arguments and Legal Friction

During the hearing, representatives for the appellants pointed out that the CPIO's replies were not only dismissive but also contradictory. While the CPIO initially refused to provide documents, claiming they were internal matters, they later fluctuated between citing "written instructions" and official Statutory Rule Orders (SROs) to explain appointment procedures.

The respondent authority contended that no formal advertisement for the specific vacancies had been issued. However, following a notice from the Commission, the CPIO submitted a revised, detailed reply essentially addressing the points of dispute, which the CIC accepted as a corrective measure to the initial procedural failure.

Legal Analysis: The Scope of Section 2(f)

The Commission relied on the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , which defines the scope of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The judgment clarifies that:

> "A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant."

Commissioner Ramalingam noted that while the CPIO is not expected to interpret documents or provide legal advice on the validity of an employment decision, they are strictly obligated to disclose material information existing in the records. By forcing employees to use internal grievance mechanisms—which often lack the transparency of the RTI process—the public authority had effectively flouted the spirit of the Act.

Key Observations

The Commission’s order highlights the necessity for higher-ranking officials to exercise due diligence. Significant observations include:

• "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case... observes that initial response given by the CPIO in each case, is evasive and incorrect."
• "The CPIO is not under an obligation to draw inference or interpretation of the records and their role is restricted to disclosure of information available in material form under their custody."
• "The then FAA Shri Vineet Sharma is advised to apply his mind and issue a speaking order while disposing of the First Appeals, since the CPIO gave an irrelevant and misleading reply initially."

The Road Ahead

The final decision serves as a stern reminder to public authorities that technical gatekeeping is not a permissible excuse for withholding non-exempt records.

While the Commission did not award further relief on the merits of the recruitment dispute—concluding that the appellants are at liberty to file fresh, specific applications if they seek further internal file notings—the ruling establishes an important precedent. By directing the serving of this order to the former FAA, the CIC has signaled that accountability for dismissive First Appeals will be taken seriously. For future RTI petitioners, this judgment reinforces that the right to information remains an independent statutory right, regardless of an applicant’s employment status within an organization.