Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Wednesday, 22 July 2026.
In a strong indictment of the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has initiated penalty proceedings against officers of several Public Authorities after finding prima facie violations ranging from failure to furnish information, ignoring statutory timelines and even defying appellate orders.
In a series of orders, the
transparency watchdog of the country directed show-cause proceedings under
Section 20 of the RTI Act against officers of the Directorate of Health
Services Jammu, Medical Superintendent District Hospital Rajouri, Srinagar
Municipal Corporation, Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu, Block Development
Office Bhaderwah and Municipal Committee Sumbal.
The Commission observed that these Public Authorities either failed to respond to RTI applications within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, furnished information only after the Commission intervened or could not establish that replies had ever been dispatched to the applicants. Moreover, the CIC held that such conduct amounted to a "deemed refusal" to provide information, defeating the very purpose of the transparency law.
As far as Directorate of Health Services Jammu and Medical Superintendent District Hospital Rajouri are concerned, the CIC questioned whether the RTI reply had ever been dispatched to the applicant, noting that no proof of dispatch was produced and the complainant learnt of the alleged reply only during the hearing.
Holding that the circumstances indicated prima facie obstruction of the citizen's right to information, the Commission directed the Medical Superintendent and CPIO to explain why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. "The contention and submission of the CPIO shall be supported with relevant documents to discharge the onus of his omission, if any", read the order.
In case relating to the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah, the Commission found that not only had the CPIO failed to provide any information despite a specific direction from the First Appellate Authority, but the officer attending the hearing was also unprepared with the facts of the case. The Commission described the conduct as a "gross violation" of the RTI Act and ordered both a revised reply and show-cause proceedings.
"The failure to provide a reply to the RTI Application in terms of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act amounts to causing a deemed refusal to provide the information by the CPIO. Similarly, the non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 16.12.2024, further amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act on the part of the CPIO", the CIC said and directed the CPIO to send a cogent response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
As far as Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu is concerned, the CIC observed non furnishing of information vis-à-vis Fards issued by the Tehsildar Bahu in respect of village Chowadhi and said, " prima-facie failure of the CPIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply to the instant RTI Application amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act".
Further, the Commission took exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing, without any advance prayer for leave, and for disregarding the instructions given at para 3(a) and 4(b) of the notice of hearing dated 13.05.2026. Accordingly, the CIC directed the CPIO to furnish a response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
Similarly, Srinagar Municipal Corporation was pulled up after the applicant received the requested information long after filing the RTI application and only after the Commission registered the complaint. The CIC observed that no explanation had been offered for the delay and ordered penalty proceedings against the concerned CPIO.
The Commission also censured the Municipal Committee, Sumbal, for responding only after the CIC issued notice on the second appeal. Besides directing the CPIO to explain the delay, it reminded the First Appellate Authority of its statutory obligation to decide appeals in time, observing that failure to do so renders the first appeal mechanism redundant.
These orders signal the Commission's growing concern over repeated violations of the RTI Act by Public Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir and indicate that erring officers could face monetary penalties if they fail to satisfactorily explain the lapses during the scheduled show-cause hearings.
In a strong indictment of the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has initiated penalty proceedings against officers of several Public Authorities after finding prima facie violations ranging from failure to furnish information, ignoring statutory timelines and even defying appellate orders.
The Commission observed that these Public Authorities either failed to respond to RTI applications within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, furnished information only after the Commission intervened or could not establish that replies had ever been dispatched to the applicants. Moreover, the CIC held that such conduct amounted to a "deemed refusal" to provide information, defeating the very purpose of the transparency law.
As far as Directorate of Health Services Jammu and Medical Superintendent District Hospital Rajouri are concerned, the CIC questioned whether the RTI reply had ever been dispatched to the applicant, noting that no proof of dispatch was produced and the complainant learnt of the alleged reply only during the hearing.
Holding that the circumstances indicated prima facie obstruction of the citizen's right to information, the Commission directed the Medical Superintendent and CPIO to explain why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. "The contention and submission of the CPIO shall be supported with relevant documents to discharge the onus of his omission, if any", read the order.
In case relating to the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah, the Commission found that not only had the CPIO failed to provide any information despite a specific direction from the First Appellate Authority, but the officer attending the hearing was also unprepared with the facts of the case. The Commission described the conduct as a "gross violation" of the RTI Act and ordered both a revised reply and show-cause proceedings.
"The failure to provide a reply to the RTI Application in terms of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act amounts to causing a deemed refusal to provide the information by the CPIO. Similarly, the non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 16.12.2024, further amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act on the part of the CPIO", the CIC said and directed the CPIO to send a cogent response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
As far as Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu is concerned, the CIC observed non furnishing of information vis-à-vis Fards issued by the Tehsildar Bahu in respect of village Chowadhi and said, " prima-facie failure of the CPIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply to the instant RTI Application amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act".
Further, the Commission took exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing, without any advance prayer for leave, and for disregarding the instructions given at para 3(a) and 4(b) of the notice of hearing dated 13.05.2026. Accordingly, the CIC directed the CPIO to furnish a response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
Similarly, Srinagar Municipal Corporation was pulled up after the applicant received the requested information long after filing the RTI application and only after the Commission registered the complaint. The CIC observed that no explanation had been offered for the delay and ordered penalty proceedings against the concerned CPIO.
The Commission also censured the Municipal Committee, Sumbal, for responding only after the CIC issued notice on the second appeal. Besides directing the CPIO to explain the delay, it reminded the First Appellate Authority of its statutory obligation to decide appeals in time, observing that failure to do so renders the first appeal mechanism redundant.
These orders signal the Commission's growing concern over repeated violations of the RTI Act by Public Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir and indicate that erring officers could face monetary penalties if they fail to satisfactorily explain the lapses during the scheduled show-cause hearings.
.JPG)
.JPG)
