1|Page

How many questions can be asked in one RTI application?

Posing a “question” seeking information is beyond the purview of RTI. In the case of Gaga deep
Singh Vs. Tis Hazari Court –CIC/SA/A/2015/000387 decided on 29¬-06¬-2015 the appellant
had sought information regarding the Tis Hazari Court employees, whether they can form
associations and participate union activities prejudicial to the interests of the country and CIC
rejected the appeal observing that it finds that the RTI questions of the appellant do not fall
within the definition of “Information” as per RTI Act.
CIC in the case of Mr. M. V. Unnikrishnan vs. CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices has held
that as per Section 6(1) of the RTI Act a person who desires to obtain any information from a
public authority shall make a request in writing along with the prescribed fee. Rule 6 of the Right
to Information Rules, 2012 lays down that the RTI request should be accompanied by an
application fee of Rs 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker’s
cheque or Indian postal order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Hence, the
instant matter fails the maintainability test as the prescribed RTI fee has not been paid to start
the RTI proceedings.
There is no restriction or cap on the quantum of information to be provided in respect of an
application. However, Rule 14 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005 states that an
RTI application needs to be restricted to only one subject matter and if information in respect of
different subject matters is sought in one application, the PIO may provide information in
respect of the first item and request the applicant to submit separate applications in respect of
other subject matters.
Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) while
addressing the present second appeal observed that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
Act can only be claimed when the information sought relates to the personal information of a
third party.
Information Sought
Appellant had sought certified copies of the delivery sheet of the article/ registered speed post
letter along with the date and time and name of the postman who delivered the same to the
concerned authorities.
CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 talks about Exemption from disclosure of information
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship
to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
shall not be denied to any person.
On being dissatisfied, the first appeal was sought and on the ground of unsatisfactory reply in
the first appeal from the respondent, Second Appeal was filed under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
2|Page

Section 19: Appeal

(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty
days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to
such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he
or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer
or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under Section 11 to disclose third-
party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from
the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from
the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the
Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the
case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the
Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall
give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be
on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be, who denied the request.
(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of
the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days
from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as
the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision, Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the
case may be, has the power to—
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure
compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
3|Page

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management
and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment
suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be,
shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public
authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may
be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
Decision
Commission observed that an appropriate reply has not been furnished to the appellant.
Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act
Further, it was noted that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act can only be claimed
when the information sought relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure
of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of
the privacy of the third party.
In the present matter, the bench noted that the information sought was not the personal
information of a third party, hence exemption Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be
applicable in the present case.
While disposing of the present appeal and considering the above-noted facts, along with the
fact that RTI Act supersedes any departmental rules, the Commission directed the respondent
to furnish due information to the appellant. [S. Muthumalai v. CPIO, Second Appeal No.
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162110, decided on 17-09-2020]
Central Information Commission (CIC): Bimal Julka, Chief Information Commissioner, noted
that the RTI application seeking very pertinent information with regard to COVID-19 pandemic
was shuttled between one public authority to another and held that the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare shall collate all the information and furnish the same to complainant and on its’
website.
Complainant sought records by way of his RTI application on the following points:
Date when the Government of India first received information on the coronavirus/Wuhan virus/
virus affecting China.
Whether any communication was received by the Government of India about a possible
pandemic like situation in India between the period of November 2019 to March, 2020?
4|Page

Copy of the minutes of meeting that took place into the possibility of declaring coronavirus a
health emergency or not between the period of March 5th to March 14th, 2020.
Whether the Government of India/any of its ministries or departments had received
warnings/alerts/communication from the World Health Organisation on the possibility of
coronavirus affecting India?
Whether any internal reports on a possibility of a pandemic like situation arising in India was
communicated within the Ministry or its departments?
Any intelligence information on the coronavirus diseases originating from China possibly
affecting India in future?
Whether the Government of India/this Ministry or its various departments sought China’s
assistance in getting the sample of Virus?
Was China requested to share virus genetic sequence?
On which date did ministry of health first communicated the information of Virus possibly
affecting India to PMO?
When was the issue of inadequate PPE discussed in the Ministry?
Whether additional funds were sought to fight against the virus. If so the date on which the first
request and subsequent requests were made and to whom be furnished?
Whether the Ministry proposed a ban on incoming Chinese citizens to India?
Whether the ICMR received any reports/communications/internal warnings/memos/internal
reports during the period of November 2019 to March 2020 about the possibility of a pandemic
like situation in India due to the virus: To this ICMR responded that all the information pertaining
to circulars, notifications, etc, is available on the ICMR website.
Whether the Government of India/this Ministry or its various departments was monitoring the
situation in China and its possible effects on India?
To almost all the above queries, ICMR responded with a standard response — Not pertains to
ICMR.
Complainant remained dissatisfied with the respondent’s response.
RTI Act
Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in
the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information
should be an exception.
Another significant observation was that, an open government, which is the cherished objective
of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
Accountability
Several decisions are being made by the Governments involving huge interventions in the
healthcare impacting daily lives of billions of people, hence it is essential that the decisions are
thoroughly documented in order for the Government to remain accountable.
5|Page

Information pertaining to COVID-19

Complainant sought very pertinent information with regard to COVID-19 situation, which could
not be made available by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Commission held that authentic, verified and cogent reply based on factual information needs to
be furnished to the complainant as also disclose on the Public Authority website for the benefit
of public at large.
Secretary, Health & Family Welfare was advised to have this matter examined at an appropriate
level and the Nodal Authority so notified should furnish all the details sought by the
Complainant in a clear, cogent and precise manner within a period of 30 days.
In view of the above complaints were disposed of. [Saurav Das v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC
626, decided on 23-07-2020]

CIC | Department of Justice to examine RTI applications and provide a clear,

cogent and precise response

Central Information Commission (CIC): Bimal Julka, Chief Information Commissioner, instructed
Ministry of Law and Justice.to examine the RTI Application to provide a clear, cogent and
precise response to the appellant.
Appellant sought information regarding the photocopy of the request sent by the Government of
India to Chief Justices of High Courts for ensuring due consideration to be given to suitable
candidates belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities and Women while sending proposals for
appointment as Judges of those High Courts; photocopy of all replies received from Chief
Justices, if any, till the date of RTI application.
Commission observed that RTI Act, 2005 stipulated time limits in its various provisions relating
to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to
ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of
the democracy gets established.
Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum
assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information.
Commission instructs the Respondent to FAA, D/o Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice to
examine the RTI Application/ First Appeal and provide a clear, cogent and precise response to
the Appellant within a period of 30 days.
In view of the above, appeal was disposed of. [Venkatesh Nayak v. CPIO & Secy., Ministry of
Law and Justice, CIC/JUSTC/A/2018/153653-BJ, decided on 24-07-2020]
Allahabad High Court: This petition had been filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vivek
Kumar Birla, J., in order to quash the impugned order passed by District Magistrate.
Facts of the case were that petitioner had been accused of encroaching upon the land of Gaon Sabha
which was recorded as navin parti in the Revenue Code due to which damages were imposed upon
petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioner aggrieved by the above filed an
appeal before District Magistrate which was dismissed. This petition was filed against the above-
impugned orders.
6|Page

Petitioner contended that the impugned orders were arbitrary and illegal as petitioner’s ground was not
considered. The orders also did not consider the claim filed in the appeal under Section 67-A. Whereas
the respondent argued that the land in question was recorded as navin parti and it was not allotted to the
petitioner.
The High Court while perusing impugned order found that notice was duly issued to petitioner whereby
in reply he claimed that the land in question belonged to him but according to Code there is no allotment
of land to petitioner and he is not eligible for the same. Court while perusing appellate order found that
no documents to show allotment of land to petitioner were brought also petitioner was not eligible for
allotment of land under Section 64 of the code. Court observed that not even this court had been
presented with evidence to that effect. Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore,
petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. [Satyadev Tripathi v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All
1813, order dated 03-10-2018]