RTI requests for missing Section 4(1)(b) disclosures valid; evasive replies on repetitive queries impermissible if basic compliance info denied; public authorities must proactively disclose and Information Commissions monitor Section 4 adherence.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b), 7(9), 18, 25(5) - Multiple second appeals clubbed due to common appellant and similar subject matter seeking attested copies of suo motu disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) missing from website since 2014, along with reasons for non-compliance - CPIO's uniform reply across applications rejected requests citing no obligation to deduce conclusions or research (per DOPT OM dated 10.07.2008), repetitive nature post-service removal, disproportionate diversion of resources, and prior CIC observations on vexatious use - FAA upheld CPIO - Commission found replies incomplete, evasive, misleading; directed CPIOs to re-examine applications, provide revised replies on Section 4(1)(b) compliance within six weeks, ensure constant endeavour for proactive disclosures via internet to minimize RTI recourse, and upload updated information using common format - Cited Supreme Court directive for continuous monitoring by Information Commissions under Section 25(5).

Facts of the case:
Appellant, previously removed from service, filed six RTI applications seeking comprehensive Section 4(1)(b) disclosures not on website, reasons for defiance since 2014, and affidavits of compliance. CPIO disposed applications invoking Sections 2(f), 7(9); FAA upheld. During hearing, respondent admitted non-compliance, noted shift to individual CPIOs per school, assured Section 4(1)(b) compliance.

Findings of Court:
Replies incomplete/evasive; public authorities must proactively disclose under Section 4(1)(b) at intervals; Commissions to monitor compliance per Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990/2021; use common disclosure format advised.

Issues: Whether requests for missing Section 4(1)(b) disclosures, reasons for non-update, and compliance affidavits are valid or amount to seeking conclusions/research; obligation for suo motu disclosures and monitoring thereof.

Ratio Decidendi: Information under RTI is material held/controlled by authority, not deduced conclusions; repetitive voluminous requests diverting resources invoke Section 7(9), but evasive replies on basic compliance obligations violate Act; proactive disclosures mandatory to promote transparency, reduce RTI burden; Information Commissions must monitor Section 4 implementation.

Result: Appeals disposed directing revised point-wise replies within six weeks, website updates in common format, order placement before competent authority; FAA to ensure compliance.

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2021 (online) seeking the following information:

“1. Please provide the attested (R) attested xerox copies/diskette of the following information of Section 4 (b) (i) of RTI Act 2005 found incomplete/not available on your website along with reasons for willful defiance of said Act since Mar 2014 and its non-updating till this date. While replying to this request it is reiterated to take cognizance of the website of CIC, SCI and some other reputed organizations for suo motu disclosure on website.

(a) Particulars of Organization, Functions & Duties.

(b) Powers, Duties & Responsibilities of the Officers & employees.

(d) Norms set for the discharge of functions.

(e) Rules, Regulations, Instructions, Manual & Records for discharging functions.

(f) Categories of documents held by the public authority.

(g) Arrangement for consultation with or representation by the members of public in relation to formulation of policy or implementation thereof.

(h) Boards, Councils, Committees & other bodies constituted as part of public authority.

(i) Directory (exhaustive) of Officers & Employees.

(j) Monthly remuneration received by Officers & Employees including the system of Compensation.

(k) Budget allocation & proposed expenditure & Disbursement particulars: Plan Scheme.

(l) Manner of execution of subsidy programs.

(m) Particulars of recipients of concessions & permits.

(n) Information available in electronic form Particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information.

(o) Particulars of Public Information Officers.

(p) Citizens Charter as per the recommendation of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission.

(q) Affidavit of completing the website in all respect within 30 days with dates of necessary changes incorporation under the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of RTI Act to the Supreme Court of India, respective Ministry of Central Government & undersigned.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.11.2021 stating as under:

“Please refer to your above 06 RTI applications seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. The reply of CPIO Sainik School Society on the above RTI applications is as under.

In terms of DOPT OM No.11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 it has been explained that according to section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 Information means "any material" in any form. A Citizen under the Act has a right to get material from a public authority which is held by or under the control of that public authority, the PIO is required to supply such material to who seeks it. The Act, however, does not require the public information officer to deduce some conclusion from the material and supply the conclusion so deduced to the applicant. The PIO is not required to research on behalf of the applicant to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him.

From the above RTI applications of Shri Jayant Kumar Singh it is observed that the information sought by the applicant mainly concerns suggestions/conclusions/reasons and are of the nature of which have already been raised by the applicant in his earlier RTI applications. It is pertinent to mention here that during the year 1st January 2021 to 31st October 2021 around 60 RTI applications have been answered. It is also observed that the applicant has been making a number of RTI applications to CPIO Sainik School Society and also to other Public Authorities since 2012 consequent upon his removal from service by Sainik School Ambikapur. Such kind of information sought in the above RTI applications which require collection and collation of information will disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority attracting provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

In this regard CIC decision in File No. CIC/MPERS/A/2018/141407 dated 06.01.2020 in Nutan Thakur v/s CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training and CIC decision in File No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001734-SA in Sh. Sudhir Kumar v/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document