statutory responsibilities of the CPIO

in the matter of J P Agrawal vs Union of India & Ors., [2011 VII AD (Del.) 625], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to explain the ambit of Sections 5(4) and 5(5) vis-à-vis the statutory responsibilities of the CPIO under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act in the following terms: “7. Section 4 of the Act obliges every public authority to publish inter alia the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information and the names, designations and other particulars of the PIOs. Section 5 requires the public authorities to designate PIO to provide information to persons requesting for information under the Act. Such PIOs, under Section 5(2) of the Act are to receive applications for information and under Section 5(3) of the Act are to deal with request from persons  seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the information seekers. The Act having required the PIOs to "deal with" the request for information and to "render reasonable assistance" to the information seekers, cannot be said to have intended the PIOs to be merely Post Offices as the Petitioner would contend. The expression "deal with", in Karen Lambert v. London Borough of Southwark (2003) EWHC 2121 (Admin) was held to include everything right from receipt of the application till the issue of decision thereon. Under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.

8. Even otherwise, the very requirement of designation of a PIO entails vesting the responsibility for providing information on the said PIO. As has been noticed above, penalty has been imposed on the Petitioner not for the reason of delay which the Petitioner is attributing to Respondent No. 4 but for the reason of the Petitioner having acted merely as a Post Office, pushing the application for information received, to the Respondent No. 4 and forwarding the reply received from the Respondent No. 4 to the information seeker, without himself "dealing" with the application and/or "rendering any assistance" to the information seeker. The CIC has found that the information furnished by the Respondent No. 4 and/or his department and/or his administrative unit was not what was sought and that the Petitioner as PIO, without applying his mind merely forwarded the same to the information seeker. Again, as aforesaid the Petitioner has not been able to urge any ground on this aspect. The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates.

The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done.”

….

 Discussion/observation:

7. CPIO of NE Division of MHA is the concerned CPIO under the RTI Act.

8. The Commission observed that the respondent is the concerned CPIO of NE Division. Under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, she had taken assistance of other officer and now the CPIO is required to apply her mind independently to advice received from Office of the Interlocutor and GOI Representative for Naga Peace Talks to the contents of the RTI application for making a decision on whether to provide information.