An RTI Request That Gets No Reply
A candidate who appeared in the written examination for Head Constable (Ministerial) writes to the battalion's public information officer, paying the prescribed fee, and asks for four things: (i) his own paper-wise marks; (ii) copies of his own answer sheets; (iii) the model answer key and the minutes of the moderation committee that finalised it; (iv) the category-wise cut-off marks for all candidates. He files the request on 3 March and receives no reply at all. On 10 May he visits the battalion office and is told orally that 'answer sheets and internal minutes are confidential' and that he should 'apply afresh if he wants anything'. He asks the office informally what his options now are and whether any compensation is payable for the delay.
1. Calculate the date by which the reply was due, identify the remedies now open to the applicant, and flag any limitation problem.
Read the worked answer
Due date. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the public information officer must dispose of a request within 30 days of receipt. Counting from 3 March, the reply was due by 2 April (assuming a 31-day March; in any case no later than 2 April). No reply was received, so a deemed refusal arose on 3 April.
Remedies.
- First appeal to the officer senior in rank to the PIO, which must ordinarily be filed within 30 days of the expiry of the period or of receipt of the decision - that window ran to about 2 May. The applicant is outside it, so the first appeal must be accompanied by a written request for condonation of delay, explaining that he was orally assured the matter was being examined.
- Complaint to the Information Commission for refusal to receive, or failure to provide, information within the stipulated time. The complaint route does not substitute for the appeal but is available where the PIO has obstructed access.
- The oral advice to 'apply afresh' is not a lawful reply: a fresh application would restart the clock and cannot cure the original default.
Limitation flag. Because the first-appeal window has run, the applicant should not rely on the appeal alone. He should file the first appeal with a condonation request and, in parallel, a complaint, and record the 10 May visit in writing so the oral refusal is documented.
2. For each of the four items sought, state whether it should be disclosed or refused, and give the reasoning a PIO should record.
Read the worked answer
Item (i), own paper-wise marks - disclose. These are the applicant's own particulars and are not third-party information. No exemption in the Act covers a candidate's own result.
Item (ii), copies of his own answer sheets - disclose. Once evaluation is complete and the result declared, an evaluated answer sheet is information held by the public authority, and it belongs to the applicant's own case. The label 'confidential' is not an exemption under the Act; the Act's exemptions are specific, and none covers an evaluated answer sheet of the requester.
Item (iii), model answer key and moderation committee minutes - reasoned decision required, not a blanket refusal. The committee's minutes are internal deliberation, but 'internal' is not a listed exemption. The PIO must apply the specific heads of exemption (for example, information held in a fiduciary relationship, commercial confidence, or personal information whose disclosure has no public interest) and record which applies and why. Where the entire process for this examination is complete, disclosure ordinarily prevails; where the key is also to be used for an ongoing recruitment cycle, the PIO should disclose the portion relevant to the completed papers and give reasons for withholding the rest. A one-line 'confidential' reply will not survive appellate scrutiny.
Item (iv), category-wise cut-offs - disclose; individual marks of other candidates - refuse. A cut-off is a decision of the recruiting body, not personal information. By contrast, the marks of identifiable other candidates engage the personal-information exemption, and the PIO should disclose aggregate or cut-off figures while declining the individual marks of third parties unless a larger public interest is shown.
Practical note: since the candidate was orally told to 'apply afresh', the appellate authority should also examine whether the PIO's conduct amounts to refusal without reasonable cause.
3. If the Information Commission finds refusal without reasonable cause, compute the maximum penalty for the delay up to 10 May and state the governing limit.
Read the worked answer
Period of default. The reply fell due on 2 April. Treating delay as running from 3 April to 10 May: April contributes 28 days (3 to 30 April) and May contributes 10 days, giving 38 days of default. (If the due date is treated as inclusive, the figure is 39 days; the answer should state the convention used.)
Rate and cap. The Act provides a penalty of ₹250 for each day of delay, subject to an overall ceiling of ₹25,000, computed at ₹250 × 38 = ₹9,500.
The cap is nowhere near being reached here, so no proration issue arises. Two further points of judgement belong in the answer rather than a bare figure: the penalty is imposed on the PIO personally, not on the battalion, and the Commission has discretion - it must be satisfied that the delay was without reasonable cause, and it may also recommend disciplinary action. The oral refusal on 10 May is relevant evidence on reasonable cause, since it shows the office was still treating the request as closed rather than pending.