PIO and FAA should provide detailed justification of provisions of section 8

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal: No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 Dated, the 7th July, 2006 Name of the Appellant : Shri Dhananjay Tripathi  Name of the Public Authority : Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

The reply given to the Appellant on 31.01.06 mentioned section 8(l)(g) as the clause under which information was denied [without giving reasons for rejection as laid down in Section (8)(i) of the Act]. The reply also stated that ‘the disciplinary authority is seized with the matter and at this level no information can be given to any person’. In their comments to the Commission, the BHU added an additional ground, i.e. Section 8(1)(h) for denial of information. Why no reasons for denial were given and only the bare provisions of the Act were cited while conveying the rejection? The Registrar had no answer. Moreover, the fact that the Registrar added another clause of the RTI long after the initial denial had been sent to the applicant points towards the callous and casual approach of the BHU Registrar while dealing with the applications under the RTI Act.

8. The Commission, therefore, was compelled to observe that the Registrar had taken recourse to the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) merely as a pretext to deny the information. It is difficult to comprehend why the Registrar sat over the fact-finding Committee’s small report for fifteen months without taking any action even after there was an RTI application. Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate  Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.