RTI Request, Minutes and Mobile Numbers
On 3 July, a resident files a handwritten application under the Right to Information Act before the Panchayat Secretary asking for certified copies of minutes of the last three Gram Sabha meetings, the beneficiary list for a roadside plantation scheme, and the mobile numbers of all ward members. The Sarpanch tells the Secretary not to release the minutes because they are internal and not to disclose mobile numbers because members fear harassment. The applicant is a journalist and says he will approach the Block Development Officer if no reply comes within 30 days. The Panchayat office has no designated Public Information Officer separate from the Secretary. The beneficiary list contains 85 names, including two minors. The minutes record a debate about a land dispute. The Secretary must frame a reply and decide what to release.
1. Are the Gram Sabha minutes and the beneficiary list disclosable? Give reasons and identify any redactions.
Read the worked answer
Both are records held by a public authority and are normally disclosable. A blanket claim that minutes are internal is not a valid exemption. The minutes should be released, but the Secretary may redact genuinely personal information, such as private addresses or health details, if no public interest outweighs disclosure. The debate about a land dispute is part of the official record and should not be suppressed merely because it is sensitive.
The beneficiary list is also a public record, especially where public money or scheme benefits are involved. Names of adult beneficiaries can ordinarily be disclosed in the public interest. The two minors should be protected: their names and identifying details should be redacted, or the list should be released in a form that does not reveal their identity. The Secretary should give reasons for each redaction and release the rest.
2. Can the Secretary refuse the mobile numbers of all ward members?
Read the worked answer
Mobile numbers are personal information. Disclosure is not automatic. The Secretary should consider whether the numbers are official contact numbers already circulated for Panchayat work, whether consent exists, and whether disclosure is necessary for public interest. A general fear of harassment is not enough by itself, but it is a relevant risk.
A balanced reply is to refuse personal mobile numbers under the personal-information exemption, while providing official office contacts and the proper channel for contacting ward members. If the applicant shows a specific public-interest need, the Secretary should seek consent from the members or refer the matter to the first appellate authority. The reply should cite the exemption applied and inform the applicant of the appeal route.
3. What should the Secretary's written reply contain, given that no separate PIO is designated?
Read the worked answer
The Secretary should treat the office as the public authority's receiving point and process the request without waiting for a separate PIO. The reply should be in writing, dated, numbered and sent within 30 days. It should itemise each request: minutes released with specified redactions; beneficiary list released with minors' details redacted; mobile numbers refused with the exemption and reasons stated.
The reply should mention the first appellate authority and the time limit for appeal. The Secretary should keep a copy of the application, reply, redaction notes and dispatch proof. The Sarpanch's oral instruction not to release cannot override the Act; if there is doubt, the Secretary should record the instruction and seek guidance from the BDO in writing, but should not simply ignore the request.