The Central Information Commission has held that a public authority cannot evade its statutory obligation under the RTI Act merely because an applicant filed the request on an abandoned or non-functional portal. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the requested information within one week, emphasizing that procedural lapses by the authority do not negate the applicant’s right to information.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Central Information Commission held that the failure of a public authority to receive an RTI application due to an abandoned online portal does not relieve it of its duty to respond. The CPIO was directed to provide the requested information on CGHS-approved medical packages and procedures in Patna within one week. Additionally, an advisory under Section 25(5) was issued to remove the obsolete portal and transfer pending applications to the active system.
Background & Facts
The appellant, Saket Verma, filed an RTI application on 12 August 2024 seeking two pieces of information: first, the current list of package rates for tests, procedures, and surgeries approved under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) for empanelled hospitals in Patna; and second, the procedure to follow if a hospital refuses to provide services covered under the package rates. The application was submitted online through the CGHS portal.
No response was received from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of CGHS Patna. The appellant filed a first appeal on 17 October 2024, but no order from the First Appellate Authority is on record. On 20 December 2024, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission.
At the hearing on 20 January 2026, the appellant did not appear. The respondent, Dr. Ashish Kumar Jaiswal, CPIO-cum-CMO, appeared virtually and submitted that the RTI application and first appeal were never received on the CGHS Patna portal. He relied on a written submission dated 14 January 2026, asserting that the application had been filed on the abandoned Central Government Health Scheme portal, which was erroneously created by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and left inactive.
The Commission reviewed Annexures (a-d) and confirmed that no record of the application or appeal existed in the CGHS Patna portal’s database between April and December 2024. However, the Commission noted that the public authority’s administrative failure to maintain or decommission the obsolete portal did not extinguish the applicant’s right to information.
The Legal Issue
Can a public authority refuse to provide information under the RTI Act on the ground that the application was filed on an abandoned or non-functional portal, even if the applicant acted in good faith and the authority is the designated recipient of such requests?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Although the appellant did not appear at the hearing, the Commission inferred his position from the RTI application and the nature of the appeal. The appellant’s implicit contention was that he had complied with the statutory procedure by filing the RTI application online through the portal he believed to be operational. The failure to receive the application was due to the public authority’s own administrative negligence in maintaining or decommissioning outdated systems. The right to information under the RTI Act is fundamental and cannot be defeated by bureaucratic inefficiency.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the RTI application and first appeal were never received on the official CGHS Patna portal, as confirmed by audit records. The application was allegedly filed on the abandoned Central Government Health Scheme portal, which was created by DOPT and not maintained by CGHS Patna. The CPIO contended that he had no legal obligation to respond to applications received on a portal outside his authority’s control, and that the appellant should have verified the correct portal before filing.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission rejected the respondent’s argument that administrative mismanagement by the public authority could absolve it of statutory duties. It emphasized that the RTI Act is a welfare legislation designed to ensure transparency and accountability. The Commission observed that the public authority, CGHS Patna, is the designated recipient of RTI applications concerning its functions, regardless of the portal used by the applicant.
"The Commission observes that there is a parallel RTI portal for the Respondent Public Authority, which has been abandoned, but few Applicants are still filing RTI Applications on that portal."
The Commission held that the onus lies with the public authority to ensure that its information systems are functional and properly communicated to the public. The fact that the applicant filed on an obsolete portal does not negate the authority’s duty to respond, particularly when the authority itself is responsible for the confusion. The Commission further noted that the CPIO had received a notice of hearing and had ample opportunity to respond to the request before the appeal reached the Commission.
"The Commission further observes that... Dr. Ashish Kumar Jaiswal, CPIO-cum-CMO, ought to have replied to the Appellant before coming in the instant proceeding."
The Commission concluded that the right to information cannot be conditioned on the technical accuracy of the applicant’s choice of portal, especially when the public authority has failed in its duty under Section 4(1)(a) to maintain digital records and ensure accessibility.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This decision establishes a clear precedent: public authorities cannot evade their obligations under the RTI Act by blaming technical failures or abandoned portals. Practitioners representing applicants may now confidently argue that if the information sought falls within the domain of a public authority, the authority must respond regardless of portal misdirection, provided the applicant acted in good faith.
This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural irregularities caused by the public authority’s own negligence cannot be used to deny information. Future CPIOs must proactively monitor and update their digital interfaces, and ensure that obsolete portals are either deactivated with public notice or migrated to active systems. Failure to do so may result in adverse orders under Section 20, including penalties for non-compliance.
The advisory issued under Section 25(5) also sets a benchmark for systemic reform. Public authorities must now routinely audit their RTI infrastructure and coordinate with DOPT to eliminate duplicate or defunct portals. This case underscores that compliance with Section 4(1)(a) - maintaining records in digital form - is not optional but a foundational obligation.
