Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Friday, 4th September
2026.
The Right to Information Act promises citizens a legal route to obtain information from Public Authorities, but latest proceedings before the Central Information Commission (CIC) suggest that several Government offices in Jammu and Kashmir are still struggling or reluctant to deal with such queries in the manner mandated by law.
In four separate matters
involving the Social Welfare Department, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Block
Development Office, Bhaderwah and office of Deputy Commissioner Jammu, the CIC
has flagged a series of lapses in handling RTI applications, including failure
to respond within the prescribed timeframe, deemed refusal, an RTI application
being addressed to none (Blank), an invalid transfer under Section 6(3),
failure to appreciate statutory exemptions and repeated non-compliance with the
Commission's directions.
The order concerning the Social Welfare Department is particularly significant as the information sought related to the National Crèche Scheme, Grant-in-Aid released to NGOs/VOs and Utilization Certificates and PFMS-generated payment advice concerning liabilities of 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The CIC found that the CPIO's submissions did not explain why the September 18, 2024 letter forwarding the RTI application was addressed to "none", nor did they explain the inordinate delay in initiating action on March 26, 2025.
The Commission further observed that no reply had been provided within the prescribed timeframe, resulting in a deemed refusal under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act. It also held that the CPIO had erroneously transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to the concerned NGOs, which were not shown as Public Authorities.
The CPIO had sought to explain that the records were maintained by the concerned NGOs/VOs and that efforts were made to obtain them. However, the CIC said the reply did not clarify whether the information was available with the department and held that the CPIO could not simply shift the onus to the NGOs.
According to the Commission, Sections 2(f) and 2(j) envisage that a Public Authority should provide information under their control or information which can be accessed from the record-holder office/private body under any law. A cogent reply was therefore required instead of simply shifting the onus to the NGOs and alleging their inaction or non-response.
The CPIO has been asked to submit a cogent response explaining why action should not be taken under Section 20 for failure to reply within the stipulated timeframe, the letter dated September 18, 2024 being addressed to "none", and the invalid transfer under Section 6(3).
In the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah case, the CIC has gone a step further, warning the CPIO of ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action in case of any further non-compliance.
The applicant had sought detailed information about works undertaken in Panchayat Dheraja during 2023-24, including funds received for clearing vendor bills and skilled labour payments, details of vendor bills and skilled payments, names and addresses of skilled labourers, amounts credited, Gram Sabha register and copies of files and measurement books relating to payments.
After the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide complete information within 15 days, the matter reached the CIC following non-compliance. In its earlier proceedings, the Commission held that failure to provide a reply under Section 7(1) amounted to a deemed refusal, while failure to comply with the FAA's order constituted a gross violation of the RTI Act.
The CIC had also directed the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken under Section 20 and to furnish a point-wise reply after examining the information sought under Section 2(f) and applicable exemptions under Section 8(1). But when the show-cause hearing was held few days back, the CPIO again remained absent.
The Commission took grave exception to the non-compliance and reiterated its directions, making it clear that this was the last opportunity to plead the case and comply with the CIC's directions. Any further non-compliance, the Commission warned, would render the CPIO liable for ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act.
The Jammu Municipal Corporation case presents a different but equally revealing facet.
The applicant had sought copies of attendance registers maintained by NGOs for Safai Karamcharies working in Wards 23 and 23-A from 2006 to 2012. The CPIO initially stated that the record pertaining to 2006, being 18 years old, was not traceable at present and would be supplied if and when traced.
The appellant pointed out that the request covered records up to 2012 and sought the available records for other years. The FAA and Joint Commissioner subsequently directed the CPIO to provide the desired information as per record available.
The CPIO later reported that the concerned Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor had stated that the records were 18 years old and hence not traceable. The CIC, however, found that the CPIO and FAA had failed to appreciate another crucial aspect of the RTI application-that the information sought entails the personal information of third parties and ought to have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Though the CIC declined penal action yet it directed the JMC PIO to submit a written explanation for prima-facie disregarding the hearing notice by remaining absent from the proceedings without any advance prayer for leave.
The Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu matter has raised equally serious concerns. The RTI sought details of fards issued by Tehsildar Bahu, construction on Khasra No. 1149 at Chowadhi and action taken on a court order directing status quo. The CIC found that the CPIO had failed to provide a proper point-wise reply and that the documents relied upon did not establish compliance.
It further observed apparent shifting of onus to the Tehsildar Bahu and said the conduct suggested a lackadaisical approach and a prima-facie intent of misleading the Commission by withholding the facts of the case.
The Right to Information Act promises citizens a legal route to obtain information from Public Authorities, but latest proceedings before the Central Information Commission (CIC) suggest that several Government offices in Jammu and Kashmir are still struggling or reluctant to deal with such queries in the manner mandated by law.
The order concerning the Social Welfare Department is particularly significant as the information sought related to the National Crèche Scheme, Grant-in-Aid released to NGOs/VOs and Utilization Certificates and PFMS-generated payment advice concerning liabilities of 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The CIC found that the CPIO's submissions did not explain why the September 18, 2024 letter forwarding the RTI application was addressed to "none", nor did they explain the inordinate delay in initiating action on March 26, 2025.
The Commission further observed that no reply had been provided within the prescribed timeframe, resulting in a deemed refusal under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act. It also held that the CPIO had erroneously transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to the concerned NGOs, which were not shown as Public Authorities.
The CPIO had sought to explain that the records were maintained by the concerned NGOs/VOs and that efforts were made to obtain them. However, the CIC said the reply did not clarify whether the information was available with the department and held that the CPIO could not simply shift the onus to the NGOs.
According to the Commission, Sections 2(f) and 2(j) envisage that a Public Authority should provide information under their control or information which can be accessed from the record-holder office/private body under any law. A cogent reply was therefore required instead of simply shifting the onus to the NGOs and alleging their inaction or non-response.
The CPIO has been asked to submit a cogent response explaining why action should not be taken under Section 20 for failure to reply within the stipulated timeframe, the letter dated September 18, 2024 being addressed to "none", and the invalid transfer under Section 6(3).
In the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah case, the CIC has gone a step further, warning the CPIO of ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action in case of any further non-compliance.
The applicant had sought detailed information about works undertaken in Panchayat Dheraja during 2023-24, including funds received for clearing vendor bills and skilled labour payments, details of vendor bills and skilled payments, names and addresses of skilled labourers, amounts credited, Gram Sabha register and copies of files and measurement books relating to payments.
After the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide complete information within 15 days, the matter reached the CIC following non-compliance. In its earlier proceedings, the Commission held that failure to provide a reply under Section 7(1) amounted to a deemed refusal, while failure to comply with the FAA's order constituted a gross violation of the RTI Act.
The CIC had also directed the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken under Section 20 and to furnish a point-wise reply after examining the information sought under Section 2(f) and applicable exemptions under Section 8(1). But when the show-cause hearing was held few days back, the CPIO again remained absent.
The Commission took grave exception to the non-compliance and reiterated its directions, making it clear that this was the last opportunity to plead the case and comply with the CIC's directions. Any further non-compliance, the Commission warned, would render the CPIO liable for ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act.
The Jammu Municipal Corporation case presents a different but equally revealing facet.
The applicant had sought copies of attendance registers maintained by NGOs for Safai Karamcharies working in Wards 23 and 23-A from 2006 to 2012. The CPIO initially stated that the record pertaining to 2006, being 18 years old, was not traceable at present and would be supplied if and when traced.
The appellant pointed out that the request covered records up to 2012 and sought the available records for other years. The FAA and Joint Commissioner subsequently directed the CPIO to provide the desired information as per record available.
The CPIO later reported that the concerned Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor had stated that the records were 18 years old and hence not traceable. The CIC, however, found that the CPIO and FAA had failed to appreciate another crucial aspect of the RTI application-that the information sought entails the personal information of third parties and ought to have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Though the CIC declined penal action yet it directed the JMC PIO to submit a written explanation for prima-facie disregarding the hearing notice by remaining absent from the proceedings without any advance prayer for leave.
The Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu matter has raised equally serious concerns. The RTI sought details of fards issued by Tehsildar Bahu, construction on Khasra No. 1149 at Chowadhi and action taken on a court order directing status quo. The CIC found that the CPIO had failed to provide a proper point-wise reply and that the documents relied upon did not establish compliance.
It further observed apparent shifting of onus to the Tehsildar Bahu and said the conduct suggested a lackadaisical approach and a prima-facie intent of misleading the Commission by withholding the facts of the case.
.JPG)
.JPG)
