Right to Information
Kind attn, Mr CM: RTI activists set to take to the streets against proposed appeal procedure rules in Maharashtra

Maharashtra government is all set to strangulate the RTI Act with its proposed procedure rules for filing second appeal before the Information Commission. Just for example, the rules ask the appellant to file an affidavit that the case relating to information sought for, has not been filed previously or pending with any court or authority

When the draft rules for second appeal procedure to the Information Commission were framed and were doing the rounds early this January, Pune-based Right to Information (RTI) activist Vijay Kumbhar got a whiff of it and warned about the suspicious motives of the Maharashtra government to kill the RTI Act. In 2012, it had gone ahead with stealthily changing the rules to file a RTI application under Section 6. This time it is far worse and dangerous and hence RTI activists have decided to come out strongly against them, before the state government again clandestinely implements them.


Steered by RTI activist Krishnraj Rao, four prominent RTI activists analysed the contents of the newly worded second appeal rules and with signatures of prominent activists, sent a strong letter to chief minister Prithivaj Chavan on 14th June expressing serious concern and urging him to undo the rules or face protest on the streets.


The need for framing appeal procedure rules is the direct effect of the Namit Sharma judgment, which has directed state governments to do so within six months, says Vijay Kumbhar. Thus, Maharashtra instead of making it citizen-friendly has made it difficult and has been unfair to citizens.


The most dangerous of them all is that, as per the proposed new procedure rules for filing your second appeal, you would be required to go through the unnecessary pain of fling an affidavit with an additional fee of Rs5 as “declaration that the case relating to information sought for, has not been filed previously/pending with any court/any authority”. Kumbhar states that, “The RTI Act gives liberty to the citizen to ask for information, irrespective of whether he or she is involved in a court case. This will be the last nail in the coffin of RTI in Maharashtra. With this clause, nobody will be eligible to file a RTI application in the state.”


Kumbhar adds, “Most of the people use RTI to obtain information, documents related to their work or status of their work. Thus, people demand information related to their case pending with some authority. If this clause is to be applied then nobody will be eligible to obtain information from any public authority. RTI act does not prevent anybody from obtaining information even if the case is pending before any court. Then why is the Maharashtra government trying to introduce such type of clause?”


Besides, as per the draft rules, the appellant is required to give additional personal details like name of husband/age/profession which is not presently required. All he or she is required is to give his or her own name and address.


Another rule demands that the appellant will not be not allowed to take any person/lawyer with him during the hearing of the second appeal unless the circumstances are “exceptional (which could be interpreted by the information commissioner as per his or her personal judgment).” Activists rue what about an illiterate farmer who has taken the help of an educated person to use the RTI Act or a physically challenged who cannot go on his own? Activists have demanded in their letter that this should be done away with.


Krishnaraj Rao adds, “This places the appellant/ordinary citizen at a psychological disadvantage, as the public authority is usually represented by two or more persons i.e. Public Information Officer, Assistant PIO, First Appellate Authority, and often an advocate also! This provision is discriminatory, and it imposes grave limitations on the right to send (or be accompanied by) an authorized representative. It will surely be abused to prevent RTI activists with good knowledge of the Act from representing some citizens who cannot speak for themselves.”


If these new rules are implemented then the onus is being put on the appellant to send his appeal copy to the respondents as well. Kumbhar questions this rule which states that, “while filing the second appeal one copy of the appeal or petition shall also be directly sent to the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), First Appellate Authority (FAA) and third party by the appellant.”


Kumbhar argues that, “why is this burden of sending a copy of second appeal being placed on the appellants? As far as public authorities (PAs) in Maharashtra are concerned 95% of the PIO and appellate authorities do not even mention their or appellate authorities name or address in the orders. In addition, how would an appellant know the name and address of the third party, if involved? Even if the appellant knows the names and addresses of all of these, why will PIOs accept or receive a copy of the appeal when they know the consequences of the second appeal?”


Krishnaraj objects to another clause which says that “the notice for hearing will be issued (as far as possible) at least 15 days, before the date of hearing fixed by the Commission.” Presently, there is no time limit. He states, “due to postal delays, it is a common experience that the notice that is issued only 15 days in advance reaches the appellant on the same day or the day after the hearing. For outstation appellants especially, this leaves no time for booking railway tickets and making necessary travel arrangements, and therefore, it sharply reduces the availability of the remedy of the second appeal hearing. (Sometimes, the notice of hearing is back-dated and dispatched only a couple of days before the hearing date.) For those who are doing jobs or pursuing a professional career, this allows no time to make a leave application, etc, and many people fail to appear for the hearing, which is then disposed off ex-parte.”


The letter sent to chief minister Prithiviraj Chavan states that in Rule no 7, “the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Third Party are required to send a copy of their rejoinder to the State Information Commission, but not to the RTI appellant. This is inequitable and unfair, because as per Rule no. 3, ‘Memorandum of Appeal’, the duty is cast on the appellant to serve a copy of his appeal to the concerned Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority, etc  and hence the appellant should be in the loop when the PIO, FAA and Third Party send their rejoinders.


Activists have appealed saying, “Please take such steps to inspire confidence among the community of law-abiding citizens (commonly known as RTI activists), who are using the sunshine law to actively uphold accountability and good governance in the country. Simultaneously, take steps to ensure that the common people, who are using the RTI Act to resolve their own grievances and disputes, are facilitated to do so. In the long run, this will enhance voters’ confidence in your government.”


While the Bihar government has made RTI user friendly by use of telephonic facility and call centre, the so-called progressive Maharashtra government is on the road to secrecy, indirectly.

(Vinita Deshmukh is the consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)





4 years ago

If the Maharashtra goes ahead and amends the RTI Act , the amendments need to be challenged in Mumbai High Court . The Maharashtra Government needs to restrained from acting unilaterally . They have not even bothered to place these amendments on it's website and asking for the views of the citizens who would be the most affected . The Politicians & the bureaucrats are Autocrats .

sudhir shah

4 years ago

A suggestion is made to call an urgent meet of all the NGO's & Individuals campaining for the cause of RTI promotion & implementation to make an effective impact and further chalk out the plan for Protests & Demonstration before the CM & SCIC.

nagesh kini

4 years ago

MLF members ought to join in with Vinita/Kumbhar by forwarding another signed memorandum.

The Congress President and the PM are shouting from the roof tops that RTI is UPA's 'gift to the nation', a great achievement and yet their own ruled state government is out to subvert it.
This has be brought to the notice of Sonia and MMSingh.

Banks start charging money for SMS alerts, mobile banking

In another example of cartelization among bankers, several banks have increased or started imposing charges for transaction alerts through SMS as well as for mobile banking. As usual, private lenders have taken the lead, which soon would be followed by nationalized banks

There is no free lunch says a popular adage. Our banks, having lured consumers with ‘free’ services, have now started charging for them or hiking already existing fees to fatten their bottomlines. So far this year, many banks have started charging for SMS alerts on transactions and hiked the annual fees on debit/credit cards. A few banks have even increased charges to deposit cash in your accounts. The list includes large banks such as ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and Canara Bank. Here are some areas in which charges have been increased.


SMS Alerts: Over the past month, almost all banks have begun to charge for SMS alerts on transactions.


Axis Bank sent an SMS to its account holders which states that “From 15 June 2013 this (SMS banking) service will be charged Rs5 per month”. ICICI Bank is charging Rs15 per quarter. Interestingly, both amount to an identical Rs60 per annum giving rise to the suspicion that banks, working through the Indian Banks Association, decide to hike rates in tandem or to a pre-decided plan. 


State Bank of India (SBI) is providing various services like MobiCash, mobile banking and SMS banking free of cost. Other state-run lenders like Punjab National Bank (PNB), Bank of Baroda (BoB) and Canara Bank are also providing SMS banking and mobile banking services free of cost.

(Update: As of 1 July 2013, both SBI and PNB decided charging Rs15 per quarter for SMS alert services. PNB, however, said, accounts of senior citizens, its staff-in service and retired and students, will be exempted from this charge)


When asked, an Axis Bank executive said whoever is subscribed to their SMS banking services will be charged Rs5 per month. He said, whoever chooses to unsubscribe from (to unsubscribe customers have to visit branch personally) their SMS Banking services will not be charged anything. Clearly, the banks are testing the ground. Nobody is likely to unsubscribe at a time when SMS alerts have helped protect part of the money.


ICICI Bank notifies on its websitePlease note with effect from 1 May 2013 all savings account customers availing alerts facility through an SMS will be charged Rs15 per quarter (inclusive of taxes)”. However, ICICI Bank has kept the facility free for accounts such as salary account, senior citizen savings account, silver savings account and privilege banking.


HDFC Bank notifies on its website, “Effective 1stApril, customers registered for InstaAlert service with ‘SMS’ as the alert delivery channel, would be charged.”


HDFC Bank customers registered for InstaAlert service through ‘SMS’ are charged Rs15 per quarter for salary or savings accounts, while customers who hold current account are charged Rs25 per quarter.


However, HDFC Bank said, InstaAlerts delivered through emails would remain free. Interestingly debit or credit card transaction alerts sent as per regulatory guidelines and net-banking transaction alerts are not covered in the HDFC Bank InstaAlertservice. Customers who are not registered for InstaAlert service will continue to get these alerts free of charge, according to HDFC Bank.


While all private sector lenders have increased charges for SMS alerts, Kotak Mahindra Bank has decided to reduce its already very high charges. This reduction would bring the rates at par with other banks. It notifies on its website “for savings account holders: The daily balance SMS alert that costs Rs200 per annum will be reduced to Rs120 per annum while SMS for weekly balance, transactions and value added alerts will cost Rs60 per annum from Rs75 per annum with effect from 1st July.”


Yes Bank, which offers up to 7% interest on saving accounts, is charging Rs10 per month to their basic saving account (smart salary) holders. While other account holders would continue to get transaction alert messages free of cost.


Kotak and Yes Bank, pays a higher interest on savings account balances above Rs1 lakh. But it seems both were clearly charging significantly more for other services. Even today, at Rs120 per annum, the charges are double than that of ICICI, HDFC Bank or Axis Bank.


Debit Cards:

Banks from the private sector also started hiking annual fees for debit or ATM cards. Among the state-run lenders, except Canara Bank, no other bank has increased the fees. From 1st July Canara Bank would charge Rs112 as annual fee for its debit cards issues to all customers, except holders of small savings account, basic savings account and financial savings account.


SBI is charging Rs102 annual fees on all debit cards, except Yuva International debit card. PNB is charging Rs112 and BoB is levying Rs113 as annual fees or maintenance charges on debit-cum-ATM cards.


Axis Bank has increased the annual charges by 50%. It would charge Rs150 instead of Rs100 as annual fee from its debit card users in metro and urban centers. For bank account holders from semi-urban and rural, the same is revised to Rs100 from Rs50. In addition, all prime salary account would be charges Rs150 as annual fee for a debit card. Axis Bank has also increased card issuance fee for all its customers to Rs150 from 1st May.


While ICICI Bank is charging Rs99 for gold or silver debit cards and Rs250 for business banking debit card, HDFC Bank charges between Rs100 to Rs500. Kotak Mahindra Bank is charging between Rs100 to Rs750 for platinum debit card, as annual fees.


Yes Bank has already increased the charges from November last year. The Yes Business Gold Debit Card has become costlier by Rs150 following the increase. The annual fees for the card are now Rs499. There is no annual fee on the debit card for the bank’s basic savings account holders.


Annual fees charged on ATM/debit cards


Minimum Annual Fees (in Rs.)

(Basic Debit Cards)

Maximum Annual Fees (in Rs.)

(Platinum /Business cards)

Axis Bank









Kotak Mahindra Bank



Yes Bank



State Bank of India



Canara Bank



Bank of Baroda



Punjab National Bank




The increase in banking charges is contradictory to the stand taken by the regulators. Earlier this month, while speaking at an Open House organized by Moneylife Foundation, Dr KC Chakrabarty, deputy governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has said that the decision on various charges levied by banks has been left to their respective board of directors while the Indian Banks Association oversees the reasonableness aspect and can suggest a cap on the charges.


Mohan Siroya, chairperson of the Consumer Complaints Cell (CCC) had said, "The ‘greatest wrong’ the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has committed is by disowning its responsibility to supervise the ‘exploitation’ of bank customers. RBI has given the full liberty to each bank to levy ‘service charges’ as per their wish. It has become an open market. Now it has come to the light from the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BSCBI) that the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) has been given an authority to put a 'cap' on such charges, thus fully abdicating its own duty as a statutory regulator. How is such a body expected to control the greed of making more and more money by its own members?”


Adding to Mr Siroya's view, Sucheta Dalal, trustee of Moneylife Foundation said, “The IBA operates in a particular pattern. When one bank decides to charge Rs500 for a debit card, the others, especially nationalised banks, follow its lead and say; okay we will charge only Rs250. This is how banking charges increase every time. Competition does not work because IBA has become a cartel. When was the last time that IBA spoke to any consumer organization or sought the consumers’ views?”


Ashok Ravat of All India Bank Depositors Association (AIBDA) and Vasundhara Deodhar from Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) also raised questions on the reasonableness of banking charges. Both requested the banking regulator to determine reasonable service charges.


Interestingly, while consumers are increasingly complaining about reasonableness of bank charges, the banks themselves are lobbying hard with the RBI, claiming that high cost of technology is making each transaction very expensive. For instance, having encouraged and pushed to obtain corporate accounts of companies, banks are now cribbing about high  transaction costs on small withdrawals from ATMs.


For instance, a senior central banker says that each balance inquiry costs the bank Rs11 while each transaction costs around Rs18. However, this calls for a serious discussion on the cost-benefit of technology to consumers, since the solution cannot be to load higher costs on to consumers.


The frequent hikes in service charges are fast reaching a stage where consumers will revolt. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which follows a policy of forbearance (allowing bankers to decide charges themselves) with regard to service charges, refuses to intervene. At the same time, the RBI is pushing banks to extend services to hundreds of million unbanked Indians. There is a clear disconnect here, since no-frills accounts permit only ATM transactions and banks now claim that those too involve a huge cost.


Can the RBI afford to remain silent about rising service charges? It is a question that the banking regulator needs to answer.



Parasuram Harikrishnan

2 months ago

The procedure followed by the bank need clarification PM has informing all Indians should adopt transaction by Bank cards hope early instruction will issued for the suffering of poor indians

ajay prakash pal

4 months ago



6 months ago

When RBI has clearly mentioned bank can charge on actual usage basis how can banks charge a flat fee of Rs. 15 or any specific amount. There is no transaction happening in one of my bank from last one year or so, but bank is continuing to charge a flat fee when I haven't received a single SMS in last one year. Isn't that violation of RBI Guidelines?

Ravindra Shamsher

3 years ago

Only savings and current account holders are eligible for mobile banking service. If you register your number for mobile banking services you also get the freedom to access your bank balance, fetch account statement, transfer funds and do much more. With most banks offering mobile banking services, there are different ways to do the same but the basic procedure remains the same.


4 years ago

It is absolutely looting the money from salary class account holders from their hard earned money, while it should be on free of cost for which banks are asking customers to maintain minimum balance. If Indian Government definitely want to collect the money, it should be collected from the richest people like politicians, ministers, business man where richers are becoming more richer and poorer are becoming more poorer. There is no benefit of this SMS alerts but exploiting the account holder. This is absolutely tourchering the middle class. RBI should not react on collecting money from common man rather it should corner those rich people, who has more money than their requirement and information should be available through Income Tax PAN Number. Here, I am challanging Indian Government, which has been formed by people for the benefit of people. Here, I don't see the benefit by Indian Government i.e. every day price increases, petrol increases, income tax liability increases while benefits are decreased day by day. In total Indian Government is totally one sided on richest people by politicians, business men and by collecting this money from common men it is simply sleeping. I would rather say, we should by-cott the elections, for which expenses are increased by the so-called indian government and common man life is getting miserableness.

Dayananda Kamath k

4 years ago

one more method of looting cusotmers by sbi is in gurgaon palmcourt branch of sbi suddenly the branch head desided that since it is corporate branch they need not collect cheques put in credit card drop box. i do not know whether a branch head can take such a decision on his own. since i am going out of town on holiday i dropped my cheque for sbi card in the drop box well in advance. after the due date i recive an sms that my account is overdue. i try to sms them on the number where we used to do earlier informing dropbox number and cheque number. i receive a service not available. then they have another service where you can message problem and they will contact back. i used this service also they promissed to contact back in 48 hours by sms acknowledgement but did not receive any call. subsiquenly on 20th when i came back and visited the branch. after perusing with various people they were able to locate the keys of the box and my heque along with some other 20 cheques were lying there un collected. then i went to the manager and informed the situation. and he immidetly scolded the peon why the box is lying there still and asked to remove it.however this cheque was collected on that day along with all other cheques. but sbicard has debited all the exorbitant penaltiese to all the card holders. when under core banking you are customer of a bank and not of a branch, how the action of the manager is justified. whether bankmanagment and rbi will take ation. and restore the service of drop box in the branch. they must provide it in all branches. they provide it in selected branches.and it also depeneds on whims of the branch head. whether bank will recrdit all the charges levied unethically and compensate the customers for the mental agony of being defaulter.


4 years ago


Moneylife requests all readers not to post their personal details like bank account number, debit/credit card number , mobile number or email ID on this and any other public forums.



4 years ago




In Reply to janakiram 4 years ago

Dear Sir,
Please contact your bank branch for this. Also we request you and all other readers from posting your account number, card number and mobile number on public forums.


4 years ago

MYSMS# +639192616111=or 09192616111==SMS ONLY


Chethan S

4 years ago

SBI to charge ₹15/quarter for SMS alerts. This is the announcement on SBI homepage: "With effect from quarter ending June 2013, SMS charges of Rs.15/- (inclusive of Service Tax) per quarter will be recovered."


arun adalja

In Reply to Chethan S 4 years ago

sbi already started charging rs 15 for quater ending june 13.without informing how can they deduct?icici bank waived sms charges for senior citizen,other banks must follow the same.


4 years ago

I think such practices not only of banks but by any organisation will continue basically because of absolute disregard for their own interest on the part of customers of bank and other business organisations. I just do not understand how, we, so called educated people behave in such irresponsible way and turn blind eye to our own interest.

Dayananda Kamath k

4 years ago

every service will be introduced free of charge initially to make it popular and then they will start charging you left right and center. and the regulators also contribute and govt also contribute by making it compulsory and then they start charging. you and you dont have any option because you come to know when you are short of time and this service is very much needed .one of the best example is service charges being charged for issuing solvency certificate. this is a certificate insisted by embassies and govt departments for tender qualifications. banks used to give it without any liability and accounting records maintined for a fees of rs. 100 to rs.1000/ but suddenly banks started charging based on the amount certified and maximum charges being rs. 25 lakhs. becoming insolvent by applying for solvency certificate. i complained to rbi with the same caption as well as how this can lead to corruption and frauds in the bank. as no entry is passed in the ledgers for issuing the certificate except for charging of charges. how an unscrupulous manager can mint money in this scheme. but no action from the rbi. but on its own bank reduced the maximum charges to rs. 25000/- but the loop hole is not yet plugged. even rs. 25ooo/- is exorbitant as there is no liability on the abnk and it is not at all accounted in the banks balance sheets.

Suiketu Shah

4 years ago

One must not forget that this trend of charging on even the smallest of service was started by HDFC Bank.The others have only followed.

arun adalja

4 years ago

icici banks is sending sms for creditin the money in the account but total amount in the account is not updating in sms.then why should i pay when full details are not given?


4 years ago

Hi, thanks for the engaging article..

I feel it needs to give a balanced view.. Banks are public limited companies, and need to make profits to be able to expand their reach, recover their costs, provide for the bad debts, invest in better technologies to prevent fraudsters from running amok, etc.

I don't think when we work for a company, we say that our cost of living is only Rs. 25,000, you don't need to pay me more than that. If my cost of living goes p, will come and ask you for a pay revision.

Banks need to increase dividend to shareholders, pay salaries to thousands of people they employ, give loans to small and big companies so that they can expand their operations and give employment.

Now, no doubt there are many things wrong about our banking system - banks' reluctance in general to give loans to smaller enterprises and individuals without taking adequate collateral to protect their capital; banks inability to expand into villages and rural areas; the propensity of politicians to manipulate banks into giving loans to undeserving organizations; corruption involved in lending decisions; the business of NPAs; tendency to increase charges frequently; et al.

What muddles the picture even more is the prevalence of the grey economy in the country. A large part of the economy works on cash only, and unaccounted cash at that. What it means is that those funds either don't enter the banking system at all, or reaches in fictitious names leaving the banks vulnerable to KYC norms.

Customers across the world pay far more charges for accessing banking services, and people don't mind paying those charges as the alternatives are either not present or are very expensive. Also, product prices vary depending on the features available on the product as well. So, if a particular banking account comes to you with free life insurance or general insurance cover, then paying a nominally higher amount as fees should be okay?

What Axis Bank has done is actually being clever by half. Whoever thought of this thing of customer canceling it by visiting branches did the bank's brand a big disservice, as customers would immediately understand that they are being taken for a ride here, and maybe lots of them wont switch banks immediately, but they will remember that the bank took advantage of the fact that they wouldn't find the time to visit the branch and cancel their mobile banking subscription. I suspect that even if the customer were to go to the branch, the branch would know nothing about this, and would require the customer to make multiple visits to get the necessary action recorded and undertaken. This is a malicious action and reeks of profiteering.

Banks spend approximately 25 paise for every sms and it sounded like a good idea to charge for actual number of sms sent, but maybe putting something like that in place might be expensive for banks.

No doubt RBI needs to pay attention to this streak of banks to increase charges from time to time. But maybe RBI also needs to see what it needs to regulate and what it needs to free up for the banks.

For instance should the banks in India be making NIMs of 4.5 percent?? That sounds very high when compared with the NIMs in other developing countries.

Should the banks be having prepayment penalties when they have already charged processing fee upfront?

The government's role in banking also needs to be assessed. Do we need the government to run banks, and dictate terms to them about whom to lend and how much?

RTI Judgement Series: Making report on paid news public

The CIC directed the PIO to provide copy of the two-member committee report on paid news and publish the same on the website of the Press Council of India. This is the 116th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at the Press Council of India to provide as well as publish on its website a copy of the report submitted by two-member sub-committee of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K Sreenivas Reddy set up to probe the paid news saga.


While giving this judgement on 19 September 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner, said, “PIO had refused to disclose this information without giving any of the exemption clauses under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO should ensure that the report is placed on the website of the Council before 10 October 2011.”


New Delhi resident Manu Moudgil, on 3 January 2011, sought copy of the report submitted by two-member sub-committee of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K Sreenivas Reddy set up to probe the phenomenon of paid news from the CPIO. Here is the information he sought under the RTI Act and the reply provided by the CPIO...


1. Please provide a copy of the report submitted by two member sub-committee of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and K Sreenivas Reddy to probe the phenomenon of paid news          

CPIO Reply: In this connection kindly refer to the foot note of final report of council (copy attached) which reads as follows:

“the Council decided that the report of the sub-committee may remain on record of the council as reference document”

With a view to facilitate providing copy of the said report, legal opinion has been sought on 7.09.2010.on the receipt of the same, the Secretariat would consider providing it to the general public/RTI applicants.


2. Please provide details of the meeting held on 30 July 2010 to discuss the issue of paid news, provide copy of the minutes of the meeting and any other documents detailing the proceedings of the meeting.      

CPIO Reply: Extracts of the minutes of the Council meeting held on 30.07.2010 are attached  (Annexure - A)


3. Please provide details of written or electronic communication received or send on the issue of the sub committee's report. Please provide copies of the same.   

CPIO Reply: Index of relevant documents is attached. (Annexure - B)


4. The undersigned would, at his discretion, also like to inspect all the records (both electronic and paper records), documents/letters, communication, notes, books, books of accounts, voucher, etc, which are relied on by your department and/or on the basis of which the information to the above mentioned request is supplied/to be provided. Kindly provide the working hours of your office and the name, contact details and exact location of the record officer/other officials in whose custody the said records are available ad can be inspected.     

CPIO Reply: The working hours of the office are 9.30am-6.00pm. You may visit any working day, preferably with prior appointment at Phone No. 24366745 - 46-47 Extn. 320 with Assistant Public Information Officer to facilitate inspection of required documents. The address of the office is given on the letter head.


Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, Moudgil filed his first appeal in which he contended that the said report was a public document and should be made available to the general public and under the RTI Act. 


In his order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) reiterated the reply of the CPIO. He said, “...legal opinion on the report of the sub-committee on paid news has not been received so far. On the receipt of the same, the Secretariat would consider providing it to the general public/RTI applicants.”


Moudgil, then approached the Commission. In his second appeal, he reiterated that the said report was a public document and should be made available to the general public and under the RTI Act. In addition, more than seven months has lapsed since the date of seeking legal opinion i.e. 7 September 2010, he said.


During the hearing, Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, noted that the PIO had refused to disclose this information without giving any of the exemption clauses under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. "The PIO appears to have felt since the decision had not been taken in the matter the report could not be provided. Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and if what is sought is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which is held by the public authority, denial can only be on the basis that the information is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act," he said.


The PIO stated that on 14 September 2011 she had sent a letter to the appellant stating that the 71 pages report could be provided on payment of additional fee of Rs142.


Moudgil stated that he had not received this letter and demanded that the reports should be provided free of cost to him and also this should be put up on the website under Section 4 of the RTI Act.


Mr Gandhi said, this was a reasonable demand. The Commission using its power under Section 19(8)(a)(iii) directed the PIO to ensure that the report is placed on the website of the Council before 10 October 2011. This would be in fulfilment of its obligation under Section 4(1)(b)(xvii) of the RTI Act, the CIC said in its order.


While allowing the complaint, the CIC also directed the PIO to ensure that an attested copy of the report is sent to the complainant before 30 September 2011.




Decision No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000989/SG/14680


Appeal No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000989/SG



Complainant                                                : Manu Moudgil

                                                            New Delhi - 110 078


Respondents                                               : Punam Sibbal

                                                            PIO & Dy. Secretary

                                                            Press Council of India,

                                                            Soochna Bhawan, 8 CGO Complex,

                                                          Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)