Recently, a central information commissioner slammed the two central public information officers (CPIOs) of a Defence Sainik School in Delhi with a show-cause notice on why they should not be penalised for lazing over providing information for three long years and ordered them to provide the required information within four weeks, that is by the end of February.
Right to information (RTI) applicant Jayant Kumar Singh, based in Ambikapur of Chattisgarh, sought information on alleged irregularities involving a nexus between contractors and school staff regarding a building contract for the school.
CIC Vinod Kumar Tiwari, during the second appeal hearing on 31 January 2025, observed that the reply provided by the Sainik School was not only evasive but also incomplete. One of the CPIOs, he observed, had mechanically disposed the RTI application without adequately studying the nature of the information required. The other CPIO failed to furnish a revised and proper reply, despite a notice sent to him.
This spurred CIC Tiwari to issue show-cause notices to the two CPIOs—Ashok Kumar (the current CPIO) and Shailesh Rana (the former CPIO, as of 28 December 2021), asking them to explain, within four weeks, as to why the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on each of them.
RTI applicant Singh sought attested copies of various documents connected to the construction contract for eight temporary family accommodations, two halls and two rooms designated for general employees. The documents he wanted include copies of the advertisement materials, sale of tender forms and the corresponding tender form register, calculation details of the earnest money deposit (EMD), demand letters for performance guarantee, documents and complete bid proposals (BPs) for the work order, unaltered records without any blackened or blanked information.
Mr Singh also sought information on the contractors' PAN card and income-tax returns (ITRs) for the past three years, annual GST returns, documentation evidencing requisite experience in building construction, proof of classification as a construction contractor, registrations with the Bihar government and other government departments related to building, road, culverts, bridges and underpass construction, tender form fee details and EMD information and attendance sheets from the day of the tender.
RTI applicant Singh stressed that public authorities should be transparent in the expenditure of public money and that even if they are exempted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, information related to corruption should be disclosed.
Rejecting the RTI application, the CPIOs replied that their roles are limited to providing information and Mr Singh had asked for additional information which required researching and that the application had an interpretative tone. The CPIO also informed CIC Tiwari during the second appeal hearing that RTI applicant Singh, being an ex-staffer and having been dismissed from service, had been submitting multiple RTI requests to the Sainik School and other public authorities, since 2012.
The CPIO further defended stating that the School had been regularly providing RTI replies but he could not reply to Mr Singh's RTI application as it required "extensive collection and collation of information which would disproportionately divert the Society's resources, thereby invoking the provisions of section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Citing the CIC case in Sudhir Kumar vs Directorate of Education, East District, GNCTD, Delhi of 2015, he brought to the notice of CIC Tiwari that the CIC then had observed that "the applicant by making repetitive, harassing and vengeful applications causing criminal wastage of time and resource of public authority should be discouraged" is akin to abuse of the RTI Act.
In a pivotal decision dated 27 April 2020, the central information commission (CIC) addressed the challenges posed by vexatious litigants in the case of Jayant Kumar Singh vs CPIO Sainik Schools and CPIO Sainik School Society. The commission underscored that the disruptive impact of frivolous litigation is well recognised, especially when it hampers the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies.
Since the RTI Act mandates that any citizen of India can invoke the RTI Act and the CPIO has no right to attribute any motive to any applicant who seeks information under this sunshine law, CIC Tiwari pointed out that the two PIOs had not abided by their responsibilities.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the 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".)
Good that this is being pursued by the RTI applicant.