The Central Information Commission has delivered a decisive ruling affirming that public authorities cannot evade their obligations under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by merely transferring RTI applications to other departments. The judgment underscores that the original CPIO remains accountable for ensuring timely disclosure, even when the requested information is held elsewhere within the government ecosystem.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Charudatt Madhukar Patwardhan, a senior engineering assistant with All India Radio, filed an RTI application on 28 February 2024 seeking full details of his service book. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Prasar Bharati replied on 19 March 2024, stating that the service book had been transferred to the Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), Mumbai, for verification of qualifying service, and that a copy would be issued upon receipt.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 28 February 2024: RTI application filed by the appellant
- 19 March 2024: CPIO’s reply refusing immediate disclosure
- 18 April 2024: First appeal filed by the appellant
- 13 May 2024: First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s response, directing the CPIO to obtain the service book from PAO and provide it within seven days
- 1 August 2024: Second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought immediate disclosure of his service book, arguing that the delay of over two years violated his statutory right under the RTI Act. He contended that the CPIO’s reliance on PAO’s internal delays was an abdication of responsibility.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority can discharge its obligation under the RTI Act, 2005 by merely transferring an RTI application to another department, or whether it must actively retrieve and provide the information within the statutory timeframe.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates that if information is held by another public authority, the CPIO must transfer the application within five days. He argued that the CPIO failed to transfer the application promptly and instead used the PAO’s delay as an excuse. He cited Section 7(1), which requires information to be provided within 30 days, and emphasized that the CPIO’s inaction over two years constituted a clear violation.
For the Respondent
The CPIO contended that the service book was physically transferred to PAO Mumbai for verification, and that repeated follow-ups had been made via email and phone. They argued that the delay was attributable to PAO’s administrative backlog, not their own negligence, and proposed transferring the RTI application at this stage to resolve the matter.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission rejected the respondent’s justification outright. It held that the CPIO is the primary custodian of information and bears the burden of ensuring compliance, regardless of where the record is physically located. The Commission observed that the CPIO had known since March 2024 that the service book was with PAO Mumbai, yet failed to initiate formal transfer under Section 6(3) or take proactive steps to retrieve the document.
"The respondent’s attempt to transfer the RTI application after a lapse of almost two years is an attempt to evade responsibility, as they are the original custodians of the service book. This would not render justice to the appellant."
The Commission emphasized that Section 7(1) imposes a positive duty on public authorities to obtain information from other departments, not merely to pass the buck. The delay of over two years, despite repeated reminders from the First Appellate Authority, demonstrated systemic negligence. The Commission further noted that the CPIO’s failure to act within the statutory period was not an administrative oversight but a breach of statutory obligation.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The Commission held that the CPIO must obtain the service book from PAO Mumbai and provide it to the appellant within 15 days. It further show-caused the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for failure to comply with statutory timelines, directing a written explanation within 15 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Authorities Cannot Outsource RTI Obligations
- Practitioners must now argue that any delay caused by another department does not absolve the original CPIO of liability
- The burden of retrieval, not transfer, lies with the CPIO who received the application
- Failure to act within 30 days, even if information is with another office, constitutes a violation
Proactive Retrieval Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- CPIOs must initiate formal requests or transfers under Section 6(3) within five days of receiving an application
- Merely emailing or calling another office is insufficient; documented follow-up and escalation protocols must be in place
- Delays beyond 60 days without justification invite penalties under Section 20(1)
Documentation of Follow-Up Is Critical for Defense
- Public authorities must maintain records of all attempts to retrieve information, including dates, modes of communication, and responses received
- Absence of such records will be construed as negligence, not administrative difficulty
- In future appeals, failure to produce evidence of proactive retrieval will result in adverse inference
