Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2609
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Sukhamrit Singh – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, Prasar Bharati House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi – Respondent
CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/604802
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent: Shri Ashesh Kumar, Ms. Sandhya Farkya, Shri Sanjeev Datta
Information must be provided under the RTI Act only if it exists with the Public Authority, ensuring clarity and specificity in responses.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 1, 3 - Information request regarding promotions in Prasar Bharati - RTI application submitted and replied on procedural basis as per the Act. The CPIO clarified that only information held by the authority can be provided, not hypothetical queries. Subsequent appeals upheld prior responses, emphasizing clarity in responses required under the RTI Act. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Clarity of Response - The response provided to the query was deemed vague by the Commission, necessitating specific references to the rules and regulations of the Prasar Bharati Act concerning employee promotion. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed a RTI application seeking information on rules governing employee promotions in Prasar Bharati and their corresponding gazette notifications. The CPIO provided responses referring to public domain information rather than the specific promotional details requested.
Findings of Court:
The Commission mandated the Respondent to elucidate the exact rules under the Prasar Bharati Act and provide accurate URLs to the said rules and address the lack of notified promotions clearly.
Issues: Whether the information provided by the Respondent was sufficient and met the requirements of RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that all responses to RTI requests should be clear, specific, and provide direct references to applicable rules or legislation, ensuring transparency and accessibility of information.
Result: The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for information regarding promotions in prasar bharati. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. clarity and precision required in rti responses. (Para 5) |
| 3. cpio must ensure precise information and avoid vague replies. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. appeal disposed with directions for compliance. (Para 8) |
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/604802 Sukhamrit Singh .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, Prasar Bharati House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi – 110001 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025 Date of Decision : 09.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 04.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 24.09.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 16.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.02.2024 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
“1) As per the Prasar Bharati Act and its amendment, all the post held by Central Government in Akashvani & Doordarshan got transferred to Prasar Bharati. Please provide the rules and document through which Central Government employees on deemed deputation in Prasar Bharati are being promoted by Prasar Bharati?
2) Please provide the gazette notification of employees who were promoted to IB(E)S cadre in the year 2022-2023.
3) Please provide the gazette notification of employees promoted to IB(P)S cadre in the year2019-2020.”
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 04.09.2023 stating as under:
“1 The Central Government employees on deemed deputation' in Prasar Bharati are being promoted by Prasar Bharati as per provisions in Prasar Bharati Act and the Rules made there-under, which are available on the Official website at https://prasarbharati.gov.in/gazette-notifications-pb/"
2 Gazette Notification(s) in respect of Indian Broadcasting (Engineers) Service are in public domain and may be viewed on Prasar Bharati website:-
https://prasarbharati.gov.in The Public Authority under the RTI Act - 2005 is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be provided which already exist and is held by the Public Authority.
3 Gazette Notification(s) in respect of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service are in public domain and may be viewed on Prasar Bharati website:-
https://prasarbharati.gov.in The Public Authority under the RTI Act 2005 is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be provided which already exist and is held by the Public Authority.”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 16.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Ashesh Kumar, Dy. Director, Ms. Sandhya Farkya, DDG/CPIO and Shri Sanjeev Datta, Dy. Director (PBRB Cell), appeared in person.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 02.07.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
“A. The online RTI application bearing registration no.
PRBHA/R/E/23/00510 dated 12.08.2023 was filed by Sh. Sukhamrit Singh.
B. The then CPIO, PBS vide letter dated 04.09.2023 has furnished the information/reply to the RTI applicant on the basis of information received from PBRB Division, PBS and P-HR Division, DG: Doordarshan. A copy of the rep
