The Central Information Commission has reaffirmed that prolonged inaction on RTI applications, without credible justification, is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive violation of the statutory mandate under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This decision reinforces the obligation of Public Authorities to treat information requests as rights, not privileges.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, W.R. Singh, filed an RTI application on 19 February 2024 seeking details regarding the re-advertisement of an Assistant Professor post in the Department of Library & Information Science at Manipur University. He sought clarification on the de-reservation of a post originally advertised under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and subsequently re-advertised under the Unreserved (UR) category, along with any official permission from the Ministry authorizing such a change.
Procedural History
- 19 February 2024: RTI application submitted to the CPIO, Manipur University.
- No response received from the CPIO within the statutory 30-day period.
- 3 April 2024: First appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), but no order from FAA is on record.
- No second appeal filed: The appellant directly approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
- 20 January 2026: Hearing held before Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi. Appellant was absent; CPIO appeared via video conference.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of the legal basis for the re-advertisement of the post and any government approval for de-reservation. He also sought redressal for the prolonged non-response by the Public Authority.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 imposes a mandatory obligation on the CPIO to respond within 30 days, and whether prolonged silence, even if followed by a belated reply, constitutes a violation warranting corrective action.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Although the appellant was absent at the hearing, his application clearly invoked Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, asserting his statutory right to timely information. The absence of any response for over two years, despite multiple follow-ups, demonstrated a systemic failure to comply with the Act’s time-bound framework.
For the Respondent
The CPIO, Dr. Sakila Nonmeikapam, admitted the delay and attributed it to non-accessibility of the online RTI portal during the tenure of the previous CPIO. She claimed that a reply was eventually issued on 6 February 2025, albeit with an incorrect reference number. She argued that the substance of the reply addressed the query and that the error was clerical.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission rejected the CPIO’s explanation as inadequate and legally untenable. It emphasized that Section 7(1) mandates a response within 30 days, and failure to comply cannot be excused by administrative inconvenience or technical glitches. The Commission noted that the RTI Act is a rights-based statute, and the onus lies squarely on the Public Authority to ensure operational readiness.
"Failure to dispose of the RTI Application owing to non-accessibility of online RTI portal reveals the casual approach of CPIO in dealing with the matters under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The Commission further held that the belated reply, issued after nearly two years, was not only untimely but also deficient in substance. It failed to provide the requested documents, did not clarify the legal basis for re-advertisement, and contained a material error in referencing the wrong application number. The Commission found that mere verbal explanation without documentary support does not satisfy the statutory obligation under Section 7(1).
The Commission also underscored that proactive disclosure and digital accessibility are not optional but integral to the Act’s implementation. The CPIO’s conduct reflected a disregard for the spirit of transparency and accountability.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The Commission held that the CPIO’s failure to respond within the statutory period, coupled with an inadequate and erroneous reply, violated Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO was directed to issue a revised, categorical reply with all relevant documents, free of cost, within two weeks, and to submit a written explanation for the delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Is Not a Technicality
- Practitioners must treat any RTI response delayed beyond 30 days as a prima facie violation, regardless of subsequent replies.
- The burden shifts to the Public Authority to prove that the delay was unavoidable and not due to negligence.
- Courts and Information Commissions will not accept technical excuses like portal downtime as valid justification.
Substantive Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- A reply must be complete, accurate, and accompanied by supporting documents if requested.
- Vague or evasive responses that avoid addressing the core query will be deemed non-compliant.
- Errors in application reference numbers, while clerical, reflect systemic indifference and may attract penalties under Section 20.
Proactive Accountability Is Required
- CPIOs must maintain offline backups or alternative systems to ensure continuity during digital failures.
- Public Authorities must train staff on RTI timelines and document retention protocols.
- Failure to comply may result in personal liability under Section 20(1), including monetary penalties.
