The Central Information Commission has reinforced that procedural delays in transferring RTI applications are not mere administrative lapses but actionable failures under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This ruling clarifies that the obligation to provide information begins at the moment of receipt and extends to timely internal transfers, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, Naresh Kadyan, filed an RTI application on 30 December 2023 seeking detailed information about halal meat certification, animal slaughter processes, CCTV footage from the Gazipur slaughterhouse, and transport protocols for livestock in Delhi. The request spanned multiple departments, including the Animal Husbandry Department and the Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (DSPCA).
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 30 December 2023: RTI application submitted to PIO, Development Department, Delhi
- 3 January 2024: DSPCA, as nodal PIO, received the application but did not respond
- 1 August 2025: DSPCA transferred the application to the PIO, Animal Husbandry Department - after a delay of 20 months
- 26 March 2024: Complainant filed a second appeal/complaint with the CIC due to non-response
- 20 January 2026: Hearing scheduled; complainant absent despite notice
- 23 January 2026: CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO, DSPCA
Relief Sought
The complainant sought full disclosure of the requested information and accountability for procedural delays. No formal reply was received from the transferee department, the Animal Husbandry Department, leaving the complainant without any substantive response.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 imposes a duty on the initial Public Information Officer to transfer an application without unreasonable delay, and whether such delay constitutes a failure to provide information under Section 20.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The complainant, though absent at the hearing, had clearly articulated in writing that the non-response and prolonged transfer period violated his statutory right to timely information. He relied on CIC v. State of Haryana to argue that any delay beyond the prescribed timelines, even during internal transfers, amounts to a denial of information.
For the Respondent/State
The DSPCA, through its representative, submitted that the application was transferred to the correct department, albeit belatedly, and that the delay was due to administrative backlogs. However, no justification was provided for the 20-month gap between receipt and transfer, nor was any evidence submitted to show that the complainant was informed of the transfer or its status.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the statutory obligations under Section 6(3) and Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Section 6(3) mandates that if an application is not addressed to the correct PIO, it must be transferred within five days. Section 7(1) requires that information be provided within 30 days of receipt. The Commission held that the transfer mechanism is not a loophole to evade accountability.
"The delay of over 20 months in transferring the RTI application cannot be condoned merely on the ground of administrative convenience. The Act envisages a duty of promptness, not procrastination."
The Commission emphasized that the PIO’s duty is not discharged by transferring the application - it is only initiated. The failure to inform the applicant of the transfer, or to ensure the transferee department responded, rendered the entire process non-compliant. The absence of a reply from the Animal Husbandry Department further compounded the violation.
The Commission rejected the notion that internal bureaucratic delays absolve the initial PIO of responsibility. The Act’s purpose - to empower citizens with timely access to information - cannot be undermined by procedural inertia.
The Verdict
The complainant prevailed. The CIC held that the PIO, DSPCA, failed in its statutory duty under Section 7(1) by unreasonably delaying the transfer of the RTI application. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO, DSPCA, directing him to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 for both the delay and failure to inform the applicant of the transfer.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transfer Delays Are Not Innocuous
- Practitioners must now treat any transfer delay exceeding five days as a potential violation under Section 20
- RTI applicants can cite this judgment to demand penalties when transfers take more than 30 days without communication
- Legal aid clinics should advise applicants to file complaints immediately if no response is received within 15 days of submission
Accountability Rests with the Initial PIO
- The first PIO who receives the application remains legally responsible until the information is delivered to the applicant
- Even if the application is transferred, the initial PIO must notify the applicant of the transfer and the name of the new PIO
- Failure to do so constitutes a procedural violation, regardless of whether the transferee eventually responds
Documentation Is Non-Negotiable
- All transfers must be documented with date stamps and acknowledgments
- Absence of written records of transfer or communication to the applicant will be construed as non-compliance
- Practitioners should advise clients to retain copies of all RTI submissions and follow up in writing if no transfer confirmation is received within seven days
