The Tribune: Chandigarh: Monday, 17 August 2026.
The State Information Commission, Haryana, has advised all the departments to ensure that officers of an appropriate mid-level or senior rank, possessing adequate administrative authority and experience, should be designated as state public information officers (SPIOs).
In the backdrop, while
hearing a complaint regarding inadequate information being provided to an
applicant, the commission found that an assistant level official was deputed as
SPIO to provide information under Right to Information (RTI) Act by the municipal
corporation (MC), Faridabad.
Confirming the development Dr Ajay Sura, State Information Commissioner, Haryana, said the MC had defied the directives of the Chief Secretary (Administration Reforms) addressed to all the administrative secretaries and all the head of departments categorically notified the rank of officials who could be assigned the duties of SPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs).
Dr Sura said that any disclosure made by an SPIO is deemed to be an official disclosure on behalf of the public authority and, therefore, demands a high degree of responsibility, legal acumen and administrative competence.
“The commissioner, MC Faridabad has designated an assistant rank employee as SPIO which was completely contrary to the government's instructions. Since there was no malafide intention, the commissioner has been ‘advised’ to review its existing arrangement and revamp it by appointing a senior and experienced administrative level officer as SPIO. This advisory is generally for all the departments,” he said.
The commission was of the firm opinion that the designation of clerical staff, Assistants as SPIOs was neither conducive to the effective implementation of the RTI Act nor consistent with the spirit and object of the legislation as well as state government's own instructions.
An SPIO is required not only to process RTI applications but also to judiciously determine the distinction between information that is liable to be disclosed and information that is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act.
The rationale behind designating a sufficiently senior officer as an SPIO is expected to possess the requisite authority to access records maintained across different branches of the public authority, obtain necessary assistance from subordinate officers under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, objectively evaluate claims of exemption, and take informed decisions balancing the competing considerations of transparency and the protected interests recognised under the Act.
Dr Sura said that the idea was to not only facilitate an efficient and lawful discharge of the duties under the RTI Act 2005, but also ensure effective compliance with the statutory duties and liabilities attached to the office of the SPIO.
“The SPIO is expected to effectively present the stand of the department, ensure faithful compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, and act as the vital link between the Commission and the concerned public authority,” 0said.
Meanwhile, in the MC case, there was no malafide denial or deliberate obstruction in providing information from the record and that there was no constraint in providing adequate information to the complainant, the case was settled. Moreover, the complainant was at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the provisions of the RTI Act and hence the case was closed.
The State Information Commission, Haryana, has advised all the departments to ensure that officers of an appropriate mid-level or senior rank, possessing adequate administrative authority and experience, should be designated as state public information officers (SPIOs).
Confirming the development Dr Ajay Sura, State Information Commissioner, Haryana, said the MC had defied the directives of the Chief Secretary (Administration Reforms) addressed to all the administrative secretaries and all the head of departments categorically notified the rank of officials who could be assigned the duties of SPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs).
Dr Sura said that any disclosure made by an SPIO is deemed to be an official disclosure on behalf of the public authority and, therefore, demands a high degree of responsibility, legal acumen and administrative competence.
“The commissioner, MC Faridabad has designated an assistant rank employee as SPIO which was completely contrary to the government's instructions. Since there was no malafide intention, the commissioner has been ‘advised’ to review its existing arrangement and revamp it by appointing a senior and experienced administrative level officer as SPIO. This advisory is generally for all the departments,” he said.
The commission was of the firm opinion that the designation of clerical staff, Assistants as SPIOs was neither conducive to the effective implementation of the RTI Act nor consistent with the spirit and object of the legislation as well as state government's own instructions.
An SPIO is required not only to process RTI applications but also to judiciously determine the distinction between information that is liable to be disclosed and information that is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act.
The rationale behind designating a sufficiently senior officer as an SPIO is expected to possess the requisite authority to access records maintained across different branches of the public authority, obtain necessary assistance from subordinate officers under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, objectively evaluate claims of exemption, and take informed decisions balancing the competing considerations of transparency and the protected interests recognised under the Act.
Dr Sura said that the idea was to not only facilitate an efficient and lawful discharge of the duties under the RTI Act 2005, but also ensure effective compliance with the statutory duties and liabilities attached to the office of the SPIO.
“The SPIO is expected to effectively present the stand of the department, ensure faithful compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, and act as the vital link between the Commission and the concerned public authority,” 0said.
Meanwhile, in the MC case, there was no malafide denial or deliberate obstruction in providing information from the record and that there was no constraint in providing adequate information to the complainant, the case was settled. Moreover, the complainant was at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the provisions of the RTI Act and hence the case was closed.
.JPG)
.JPG)
