A Contested RTI Application at a District Police Office
Rehana files an RTI application on 3 February with the Public Information Officer of a district police office and pays the prescribed ₹10 fee by Indian Postal Order. She seeks four things: (i) a copy of the duty roster of constables for January; (ii) the name and designation of the officer who investigated her brother's theft case, and the action taken against him; (iii) his complete service record, including his medical history; and (iv) certified copies of the FIR registered in her brother's case, in which the investigation is still in progress. No reply reaches her within the statutory period. On 20 March she files a first appeal. The PIO's position, conveyed orally to her, is that the whole application is 'internal departmental information' and will not be supplied. Rehana wants the information and also wants the PIO held accountable for the delay.
1. Is Rehana's application valid, and what are the key dates: the deadline for the PIO's reply, the deadline for a first appeal, and the forum for a second appeal?
Read the worked answer
Validity: the application is valid. It is in writing, it is specific about what is sought, and the prescribed fee of ₹10 has been paid by IPO. A citizen does not have to give a reason for seeking information, and the application cannot be refused merely because the information concerns the department itself - 'internal departmental information' is not a ground of exemption under the Act.
Dates:
- Application filed 3 February. Under Section 7(1), the PIO must dispose of the request within 30 days. February has 28 days, so 3 February + 30 days = 5 March. In the absence of a reply by that date, the request is deemed refused under Section 7(2).
- First appeal under Section 19(1) lies to the First Appellate Authority (an officer senior to the PIO in the same public authority) within 30 days of the expiry of the 30-day period. She filed on 20 March, that is, within 30 days of 5 March (the last date would have been 4 April), so the appeal is in time.
- The First Appellate Authority must normally decide within 30 days under Section 19(6) (45 days in exceptional cases).
- Second appeal under Section 19(3) lies to the State Information Commission (in this case the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission) within 90 days of the date on which the first appeal should have been decided.
If any part of the information concerned a third party, Section 7(3) would have required a notice to that person and the outer limit would extend to 40 days; that does not appear to be the case here for most items.
2. Take each of the four items separately and decide whether it should be disclosed, partly disclosed, or refused. Give the provision you rely on and the reason.
Read the worked answer
The PIO must apply the Act item by item; a blanket refusal is itself a defect.
(i) Duty roster of constables for January - disclose. This records public servants performing official duty, not private information. If the roster identifies officers on sensitive deployment, the names of those particular postings can be withheld under Section 8(1)(g) (danger to life or physical safety) or 8(1)(h) (impediment to an ongoing investigation), but the rest must be supplied. A general security worry is not enough; the PIO must record a specific reason.
(ii) Name, designation and action taken against the investigating officer - partly disclose. The name and designation of an officer acting in an official capacity are disclosable. On disciplinary action, the settled position is that the final outcome and the penalty imposed can be disclosed in the public interest, while the preliminary or departmental enquiry proceedings and the findings on individual charges are ordinarily not, because they are personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and have not attained finality.
(iii) Complete service record including medical history - refuse, with reasons. This is plainly personal information under Section 8(1)(j), and medical history in particular has no rational connection to the public activity for which the information is sought. Section 8(1)(j) is subject to the public-interest proviso, but a request framed as 'the complete service record' is a fishing enquiry, not a public-interest disclosure.
(iv) Certified copies of the FIR while investigation is in progress - likely refuse or defer, with reasons. The FIR is a public document, but Section 8(1)(h) exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of offenders. Because the investigation is live, the PIO may withhold it and should say when it will be reconsidered; once the chargesheet is filed, the position changes and a fresh request should be decided on its merits.
3. What must the PIO's written reply contain, and how does Rehana get the PIO penalised for the delay? Set out the mechanism and compute the maximum exposure.
Read the worked answer
The reply must not be a one-line refusal. Under the Act it must:
- give reasons for the decision on each item, not a general assertion of 'internal information';
- mention the name and designation of the appellate authority, the period within which the appeal must be filed and any other prescribed particulars (a refusal that omits these is defective);
- apply the severability principle under Section 10, that is, release the parts that can be released - the roster and the officer's name - while withholding only the exempt parts, and give the exempt portion a proper justification;
- be signed and dated, and be sent within the 30-day period.
Penalty route: the PIO's failure to reply within 30 days without reasonable cause is a violation of Section 7(1). Rehana's first appeal under Section 19(1) goes to the First Appellate Authority; if that fails, or at any rate, she can go in second appeal to the State Information Commission under Section 19(3). It is the Information Commission, not the appellate authority, that imposes the penalty under Section 20(1): ₹250 for each day of delay, counted from the date on which the reply was due, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000. A delay of about 30 days (from 5 March) would produce roughly ₹7,500, but the Commission computes it up to the cap. The Commission may also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20(2). Rehana should also claim free copies of the information under Section 7(6), since the delay exceeded the statutory period.