One RTI Application, Four Requests

The advice is wrong. The High Court is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and Section 22 gives the Act overriding effect over anything inconsistent in any other law or in any rule of privilege. What is outside the Act is the High Court's judicial function - the actual adjudication of cases - not its administrative and establishment side. The Registry, the Vigilance section, the ACRs and the tour programmes are administrative material and are squarely within the Act.

Equally, the application cannot be rejected as a whole. Section 6 permits one application to contain several requests, and the CPIO must deal with each request separately, applying exemptions item by item and, where only part of a record is exempt, severing the exempt portion under Section 10. A blanket rejection would be a speaking-order failure and would be set aside in first appeal under Section 19(1). The other preliminary points are that the fee of Rs.10 is paid and the 30-day clock under Section 7(1) runs from receipt on 5 February, so the reply is due by 7 March, and where a third party's information is involved, notice under Section 11 must issue, which extends the period by the time allowed to the third party.

Request (i) – administrative note on the complaint: partly exempt. The note is a Record of internal deliberation and its disclosure while a preliminary inquiry is pending would prejudice the inquiry, so Section 8(1)(h) applies to that portion. Under Section 10, sever that portion and disclose the rest: the fact that the complaint was received, its subject, the present stage, and the final outcome when reached. A citizen who made a complaint is entitled to know what happened to it, not to read the officer's working notes.

Request (ii) – the employee's ACR: withhold. It is third-party personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and its disclosure serves no public interest; the employee's own ACR would of course go to the employee. Issue Section 11 notice to the employee and record his representation before deciding, so that the order is defensible in appeal.

Request (iii) – the judge's tour programme: disclose the administrative programme. Exemptions are applied to specific content, not to classes of documents, and a general claim that 'judges are exempt' fails. If the Registrar General certifies a concrete security risk, sever only those specific columns under Section 10 and give reasons for the severance.

Request (iv) – reasons for rejecting his representation: disclose the operative order and its reasons. These concern the applicant's own case, not a third party's private information; only the names of any others mentioned need be severed.

The reply must be in writing and within time, and it must do more than say yes or no:

• Item-wise disposal, with the provision applied to each item and reasons; a single omnibus 'rejected' is defective.
• Section 10 severance expressly stated, with the date and designation of the officer who applied it, and the deleted portion described.
• Section 11 notice and the third party's say recorded before the order on request (ii).
• Sections 7(8) and 7(9): where a request is refused, the reasons and the period within which the first appeal may be filed must be stated; the CPIO need not create information that does not exist, and should say so where that is the case.
• Appellate particulars: name and address of the first appellate authority, and the 30-day appeal period under Section 19(1).
• Office record: the inward register entry, a copy of the application and fee receipt, the file noting showing how each item was decided, copies of the Section 11 notice, and a dispatch proof. This is what the Information Commission will call for if a second appeal is filed, and what protects the CPIO personally when a decision is questioned.