An RTI Application With Three Very Different Items
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of a government medical institute receives an RTI application dated 3 March on 5 March. The applicant, whose father died in the institute in January, asks for three things: (i) certified copies of his father's complete inpatient file, including the HIV test report; (ii) a copy of the rate contract signed with a private housekeeping agency, which contains a confidentiality clause; and (iii) a list of the institute's doctors with their gross monthly salary and their home addresses. A junior assistant proposes to reject the application as a whole, citing 'personal information' and 'commercial confidence', and to post the reply on 10 April. The CPIO has to fix the date and decide the fate of each item, knowing that a wrong call either harms the applicant or exposes the institute in appeal.
1. Work out the last lawful date for the reply, and test whether 10 April is acceptable.
Read the worked answer
Count from the date of receipt, 5 March, not the date on the application. March has 31 days, so 26 days remain in March; the thirtieth day therefore falls on 4 April. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act that is the outer limit for a decision.
A reply posted on 10 April is six days late. A late reply is not a harmless formality: it is treated as a deemed refusal, it hands the applicant a first appeal under Section 19(1), and it exposes the CPIO to penalty proceedings under Section 20.
The only provision that stretches the clock is Section 7(3), and it applies only to material that requires third-party procedure - here, item (ii) alone. Even for that part the sequence is fixed: notice to the housekeeping agency within five days of receipt, that is by 10 March; the agency's representation within ten days of the notice; and a decision within forty days of receipt, that is by 14 April. The extension cannot be used to hold back items (i) and (iii), which must still be answered by 4 April. The correct plan is one reply by 4 April on (i) and (iii), with (ii) either decided or expressly kept open within the Section 11 timeline.
2. Decide each of the three items, with the reasoning that supports each decision.
Read the worked answer
Item (i), the father's file. This is third-party personal information, but the applicant is the next of kin of a deceased patient and needs the record for genuine purposes. Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information only where there is no public activity or interest and disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy; a legal heir seeking a parent's treatment record is the standard case in which disclosure is directed, subject to proof of relationship and to redaction of any other patient's details in the file. The HIV report needs separate care: the HIV/AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 imposes strict confidentiality on such information and permits disclosure only in defined circumstances. The CPIO should obtain the medical superintendent's written opinion on the permissible route; if any doubt survives, release the record with the HIV line redacted under Section 10 (severability) and state the ground in writing.
Item (ii), the rate contract. A contract awarded out of public funds is disclosable as a rule. Section 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence only where disclosure would actually harm the third party's competitive position, and the competent authority must still weigh the larger public interest. A confidentiality clause in the contract cannot override the Act, which has overriding effect under Section 22. Serve the Section 11 notice, hear the agency, then disclose; genuinely proprietary technical annexures may be severed if harm is demonstrated, not assumed.
Item (iii), doctors' salaries and addresses. Gross salary paid from the public exchequer is disclosable; names, designations and gross pay are routinely directed to be released. Home addresses, PAN, bank details and deduction particulars are personal information and should be severed.
3. The assistant wants a single-line rejection of the whole application. Explain why that is wrong and list the procedural steps that must be completed instead.
Read the worked answer
A blanket rejection fails on three counts. First, the Act does not permit all-or-nothing treatment: Section 10 requires that access be given to the part of the record that is not exempt, with the exempt portion severed and the ground for severance stated. Second, the exemptions invoked do not automatically apply. Section 8(1)(j) yields to a next of kin's genuine request and to public interest, and Section 8(1)(d) requires a demonstrated harm to a third party's competitive position, not the presence of a confidentiality clause. Third, item (ii) cannot be refused without the Section 11 procedure, so a one-line rejection would be quashed in first appeal almost automatically.
The steps are: register the request and diary the 4 April date; issue the Section 11 notice to the housekeeping agency by 10 March; obtain the medical superintendent's note on the HIV entry; apply severance item by item under Section 10; issue a written, reasoned, item-wise order in the prescribed format with the appellate authority's particulars; and place the rate contract on the website under Section 4(1)(b) so that the next applicant does not need to file at all. A rejection that cannot survive appeal is a cost to the institute, not a protection.