Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 7Th March 2025.
The Right to Information
(RTI) request to the income tax commissioner’s office, wherein the applicant
demanded copies of his own audit report, has been prolonging for over three
years, thanks to this public authority’s dilly-dallying, even petitioning the
High Court (HC), and sitting on the information despite the court highlighting
that the disposal of the case has nothing to do with not providing the required
information.
Central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in his order of 28 February 2025, emphasised that merely citing a matter as ‘sub-judice’ does not automatically exempt it from disclosure under the RTI Act.
CIC Tiwari provided reference to a Delhi HC ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs RK Jain (W.P. (C) 14120/2009) dated 23 September 2010, which held that “sub-judice status is not a legitimate ground for exemption unless explicitly forbidden by a court or tribunal.”
He also highlighted the CIC’s own decision of Mr Ashu vs CPIO/ Sr Supdt. of Posts, dated 28 November 2016, reiterating that “sub-judice matters do not fall under the exemptions outlined in section 8(1) of the RTI Act unless they constitute contempt of court.”
He further pointed out the paradoxical replies of the CPIO of the income tax office, Chennai. He observed in his order that if the CPIO has claimed that the requested information was unavailable in their office, how could the information be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act if it was not in their possession. CIC Tiwari further admonished the CPIO by asking as to why the RTI application was not transferred under section 6(3) to the appropriate CPIO, since he did not have the information with him.
In his order, CIC Tiwari has issued a show cause notice (SCN) to the present CPIO Sudha M Kameswaran, CPIO/ income tax officer (HQ). She has been issued an SCN to explain why the maximum penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed for non-compliance with the CIC’s order. CIC Tiwari has also directed the CPIO and other concerned officers to submit their written explanations within four weeks from the receipt of the order.
Additionally, the CPIO is required to clarify why the CIC’s directive from 30 March 2021 has not been implemented to date. The first appellate authority (FAA) has been instructed to ensure compliance with this order.
The then CIC order had directed that: “The commission directs the respondent (CPIO) to collect the information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application (which is related to the appellant) from the concerned CPIO and provide the same to the appellant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
CIC Tiwari has also questioned as to why, when the Madras High Court disposed of two petitions by the income tax department on 15 December 2023, making the previous stay order of the HC invalid, the CPIO continued to deny information.
He observed that “The respondent CPIO’s continued denial of information appears to be in bad faith.”
The commission further noted that over three and a half years had passed since its original order, yet the requested information remained undisclosed.
CIC Tiwari, in his concluding remarks, stated that:
Central information commissioner (CIC) Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in his order of 28 February 2025, emphasised that merely citing a matter as ‘sub-judice’ does not automatically exempt it from disclosure under the RTI Act.
CIC Tiwari provided reference to a Delhi HC ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs RK Jain (W.P. (C) 14120/2009) dated 23 September 2010, which held that “sub-judice status is not a legitimate ground for exemption unless explicitly forbidden by a court or tribunal.”
He also highlighted the CIC’s own decision of Mr Ashu vs CPIO/ Sr Supdt. of Posts, dated 28 November 2016, reiterating that “sub-judice matters do not fall under the exemptions outlined in section 8(1) of the RTI Act unless they constitute contempt of court.”
He further pointed out the paradoxical replies of the CPIO of the income tax office, Chennai. He observed in his order that if the CPIO has claimed that the requested information was unavailable in their office, how could the information be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act if it was not in their possession. CIC Tiwari further admonished the CPIO by asking as to why the RTI application was not transferred under section 6(3) to the appropriate CPIO, since he did not have the information with him.
In his order, CIC Tiwari has issued a show cause notice (SCN) to the present CPIO Sudha M Kameswaran, CPIO/ income tax officer (HQ). She has been issued an SCN to explain why the maximum penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed for non-compliance with the CIC’s order. CIC Tiwari has also directed the CPIO and other concerned officers to submit their written explanations within four weeks from the receipt of the order.
Additionally, the CPIO is required to clarify why the CIC’s directive from 30 March 2021 has not been implemented to date. The first appellate authority (FAA) has been instructed to ensure compliance with this order.
The then CIC order had directed that: “The commission directs the respondent (CPIO) to collect the information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application (which is related to the appellant) from the concerned CPIO and provide the same to the appellant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
CIC Tiwari has also questioned as to why, when the Madras High Court disposed of two petitions by the income tax department on 15 December 2023, making the previous stay order of the HC invalid, the CPIO continued to deny information.
He observed that “The respondent CPIO’s continued denial of information appears to be in bad faith.”
The commission further noted that over three and a half years had passed since its original order, yet the requested information remained undisclosed.
CIC Tiwari, in his concluding remarks, stated that:
- “In view of the above observations, the commission finds that the submissions made by the respondent CPIO are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
- “Moreover, they have not claimed any of the exemption clause enumerated under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act for denial of information sought by the appellant.
- “It is also noted that over a period of three and half years has elapsed from the order of the commission, and the information sought has not been provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
- “The respondent who appeared before the commission failed to give cogent reasons for withholding the information sought by the appellant.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
