Introduction

The case of A.S. Sundaram v. Central Public Information Officer/Pay And Account Officer Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting adjudicated by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on January 3, 2022, underscores the boundaries of the CIC's adjudicatory authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr. A.S. Sundaram, a retired official, sought detailed information regarding the settlement of his General Provident Fund (GPF) post-retirement through an RTI application. Dissatisfied with the initial responses, he escalated the matter through first and second appeals, challenging the adequacy and veracity of the information provided.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Sundaram filed an RTI application on November 25, 2019, requesting detailed information about the settlement of his GPF, including dates, interest calculations, and reasons for any delays. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided partial responses, directing the appellant to other departments for specific details. Unsatisfied, Mr. Sundaram lodged a first appeal on December 23, 2019, which the First Appellate Authority addressed by instructing the CPIO to furnish complete information citing relevant rules.

Upon receiving an unsatisfactory response, Mr. Sundaram proceeded to file a second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant contested not only the completeness of the information but also its accuracy. However, the CIC concluded that while the CPIO had adhered to procedural requirements and provided information as per the guidelines, evaluating the veracity of the provided data was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, affirming the adequacy of the responses provided by the Respondent.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references DoP&T OM No. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008, which outlines the obligations of Public Information Officers (PIOs) under the RTI Act. Specifically, it emphasizes that PIOs are required to supply information in the form held by the public authority without conducting independent research or verification. This precedent underscores the limited scope of PIOs in providing information, binding them to transparency rather than accuracy verification.

Legal Reasoning

The CIC grounded its decision on the principle that the Commission's role is to ensure that the public authority complies with the procedural aspects of the RTI Act, such as timely and complete disclosure of information as per the established guidelines. In this case, the Respondent provided the available information and cited procedural directives where direct details were unavailable. When the appellant contested the accuracy of the information, the CIC determined that assessing the truthfulness or potential discrepancies in the provided data transcended its mandate. The Commission emphasized that unless there is clear evidence of non-compliance or negligence in providing the information, the responsibility to verify the accuracy lies beyond the CIC's adjudicatory functions.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the delineation of responsibilities under the RTI framework. It clarifies that the CIC's authority is confined to ensuring that information is provided as per procedural requirements and that public authorities adhere to the RTI guidelines in their disclosures. The case establishes that challenges to the authenticity or accuracy of the information are not within the CIC's purview, thereby limiting its role to procedural oversight rather than substantive verification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

The RTI Act empowers citizens to request information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability. It outlines the process for filing applications, the obligations of public authorities to respond, and the mechanisms for appealing against non-compliance or inadequate responses.

Central Information Commission (CIC)

The CIC is the apex body responsible for adjudicating appeals and complaints related to the RTI Act. It ensures that public authorities comply with the provisions of the Act, addresses grievances of citizens regarding information access, and can direct authorities to furnish information as required.

Public Information Officer (PIO)

A PIO is an official designated within each public authority to receive and process RTI applications. The PIO is responsible for providing requested information within stipulated timelines and ensuring compliance with the RTI Act.

General Provident Fund (GPF)

GPF is a savings scheme used by public sector employees in India, allowing them to contribute a portion of their salary towards the fund. Upon retirement or resignation, the accumulated fund, along with interest, is settled and credited to the employee's bank account.

Conclusion

The judgment in A.S. Sundaram v. Central Public Information Officer reaffirms the Central Information Commission's commitment to upholding the procedural integrity of the RTI Act. By delineating the boundaries of its authority, the CIC emphasizes that while it ensures public authorities adhere to transparency norms, it does not extend to verifying the factual accuracy of the information provided. This decision underscores the importance of clear guidelines for PIOs in responding to RTI applications and sets a precedent for limiting the scope of appeals to procedural compliance rather than substantive truthfulness.