Three Requests, One Deadline
On 3 March a journalist files an application under the Right to Information Act with the Public Information Officer of a district hospital, paying the ₹10 fee by postal order. She seeks three things: (i) the evaluation report and comparative statement for a ₹4.2 crore equipment tender that was finalised in January; (ii) the complete medical file of a doctor who was compulsorily retired on health grounds in December; (iii) the file of a vigilance inquiry into a pharmacist that is still under way. The PIO is transferred on 20 March and hands over charge on 25 March; he tells his successor that the application is 'now the new officer's problem'. The hospital has no other pending applications. The journalist also states that she is a BPL cardholder but has not attached a copy.
1. Compute the last date for the reply and state who is responsible after 20 March. What, if anything, changes because the applicant claims BPL status?
Read the worked answer
Deadline. Under Section 7(1) the reply is due within 30 days of receipt, with the day of receipt excluded. Day 1 is 4 March, so day 30 is 2 April. Where the request concerns the life or liberty of a person the limit is 48 hours, which does not apply here.
Responsibility. The clock runs against the public authority, not against an individual. A transfer on 20 March does not pause it; the officer holding charge on 25 March inherits an application that already has 9 days left, and the handover should have included it. The outgoing PIO cannot transfer liability by walking away, and if the reply is late the Commission may proceed against the officer who was PIO when the period expired, with a penalty of ₹250 a day up to ₹25,000 under Section 20.
BPL claim. Persons below the poverty line are exempt from the fee, but the exemption is claimed, not assumed: it is allowed on production of a copy of the BPL card. As filed, with no proof attached, the ₹10 already paid stands and the request is valid; the claim cannot be used to reject it, and it cannot be used to defer it. If she produces the card, the fee is refunded - a small accounting entry, not a fresh 30-day cycle.
2. Classify each of the three items as disclosable, exempt, or partly disclosable, naming the governing provision and any timing condition.
Read the worked answer
(i) Tender evaluation report and comparative statement - partly disclosable. Section 8(1)(d) withholds information that would harm competitive position or reveal commercial confidence, but it is subject to the public interest override in the same clause. The tender was finalised in January, so the competition is over and the argument for secrecy is at its weakest. Disclose the comparative statement, the names of bidders, the scores and the recorded reasons for rejection; withhold a bidder's internal cost build-up only if he shows actual harm. Blanket refusal of the whole file would not survive appeal.
(ii) The retired doctor's medical file - exempt. Section 8(1)(j): personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and whose disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. His health records are exactly that. The public interest in the fact of compulsory retirement can be met by disclosing the order and its date, which is a public act, while withholding the clinical papers.
(iii) Vigilance inquiry file - exempt for now. Section 8(1)(h) covers information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension of offenders. The exemption is tied to the inquiry being in progress; it lapses in substance when the inquiry ends, at which point the final report and the action taken are ordinarily disclosable, and even during the inquiry the gist of the allegations against a public servant may be given if action has been taken on the report. The right reply tells the applicant which limb applies and when to ask again.
3. No reply arrives by the deadline. State the applicant's remedies with time limits, and assess the PIO's defence that 'the file was with the vigilance wing'.
Read the worked answer
Deemed refusal. Silence beyond 30 days is a deemed refusal, and the applicant need not wait for a written order to act on it.
First appeal - Section 19(1). Within 30 days of the expiry of the period, to the first appellate authority, an officer senior to the PIO in the same authority. That authority must decide within 30 days, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing.
Second appeal - Section 19(3). Within 90 days of the first appellate decision (or of the deemed refusal if no decision comes), to the State Information Commission; the Commission may condone delay if satisfied there was cause.
The defence does not hold. The 30-day limit is statutory and runs against the public authority, which is one organisation even when its files sit in different wings. A file held by the vigilance wing is an internal retrieval problem, not an exemption; Section 8 protects the content of an inquiry from disclosure, not the handling of an application about it. Once the file on item (iii) is exempt, the correct course was to say so in a reply served by 2 April and to release items (i) and (ii) or their refusal grounds. The first appellate authority should therefore allow the appeal, direct a speaking reply within a fixed short period, and record that the delay was unexplained - which is the finding that triggers Section 20 proceedings.