Forty-Nine Days and a Photocopy Bill: An RTI Judgement Call
On 4 March a student of a government senior secondary school files an application under the Right to Information Act with the district office of a state department, pays the 10-rupee fee, and asks for three things: the list of 30 candidates selected for the post of junior assistant, the marks obtained by the last five selected candidates, and the minutes of the selection committee meeting. The office receives the application the same day.
On 22 April - 49 days later - the Public Information Officer replies that the file is 'under process', that disclosing marks 'would affect the reputation of the candidates', and that the minutes are 'internal'. No appeal rights are mentioned anywhere in the reply.
On 30 April a second note arrives, demanding 180 rupees for photocopies of 90 pages. The student's family is not below the poverty line. The examination results were declared on 15 February and the selected list had already been displayed on the notice board for seven days. The student wants to know what, precisely, has gone wrong, and what to do next.
1. Identify each procedural defect in the department's handling, and state why it is a defect.
Read the worked answer
1. Delay. Received 4 March, replied 22 April - 49 days. The PIO must decide within 30 days (48 hours where life or liberty is involved). The reply is beyond time, so the request is 'deemed refused' regardless of what the letter says.
2. No reasoned order. 'Under process' is not a decision. A refusal must state reasons, the period within which the information is expected, and the name and address of the appellate authority. None of these appears.
3. A ground that is not an exemption. 'Would affect the reputation of the candidates' is not among the listed exemptions. The exemption for personal information is qualified and does not cover a public selection process as a blanket.
4. The photocopy demand. The arithmetic (90 pages at 2 rupees) is correct, but information not supplied within the time limit must be given free of charge. A bill raised on 30 April cannot revive a fee for a reply already overdue.
5. No appeal notice, which is mandatory in every reply, including a rejection.
2. What should the student do next, within what time, and what relief can realistically be obtained?
Read the worked answer
File the first appeal within 30 days of the reply of 22 April - i.e. by about 22 May - before the first appellate authority of the department, quoting the file number.
Grounds to plead: (a) deemed refusal by failure to decide within 30 days; (b) no reasons and no exemption cited in writing; (c) information must be free where supply is late; (d) the minutes of a selection committee in a public recruitment are part of the public record.
Realistic relief:
- A direction to supply all three items within a fixed period, free of cost.
- A direction on the marks, following the third-party procedure if the PIO believes individual candidates are affected - those candidates are heard, but the information is not automatically withheld.
- If the first appeal fails, a second appeal to the State Information Commission within 90 days, where the Commission can also impose a penalty on the PIO of 250 rupees per day of delay, up to 25,000 rupees, and recommend disciplinary action.
The student should keep dated copies of everything, since every deadline runs from a receipt date.
3. Is 'it would affect the reputation of the candidates' a valid reason to refuse the marks? Reason it out rather than reciting the Act.
Read the worked answer
No, not as stated - and the reason is structural, not technical.
- The list is already public. It was displayed on the notice board for seven days. Information already in the public domain cannot be withheld as confidential; a score on a list everyone has seen is not a secret.
- The exemption is qualified, not absolute. It protects personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Appointment to a government post through a competitive examination is a public activity by definition. The public interest in knowing whether selection was merit-based outweighs the modest privacy interest in an exam score.
- Not all personal data is equal. A mark sheet is not intimate information of the kind the exemption was written for - medical history, family life, financial details. Losing a little privacy about an examination score is part of competing for a public post.
- Procedure was ignored. Where a third party may be affected, the PIO must give that person notice within five days and consider their representation. He cannot simply assert 'reputation' and close the file.
A valid refusal would have named a specific exemption and a specific harm - for example, the identity of informants who reported irregularities. 'Reputation' in general is not that.