PIO must collate information from different branches and cannot mechanically deny RTI requests under Section 8(1)(j).

In brief

The question

1. Whether a PIO can validly reject an RTI request by merely citing Section 8(1) without assigning specific reasons or examining the severability of information

The court held

The Court set aside the CIC order dated 11.02.2022 and restored the RTI application to its original number

It also directed

It held that the PIO must personally collate information from all respective branches and provide it to the petitioner

If any information is withheld, specific reasons must be communicated

The Court directed that all information be furnished free of cost

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The petitioner filed an RTI application on 16.08.2020 seeking 17 points of information from AIIMS regarding wage rates (1994–2003), rules for festival bonuses, and copies of specific office memoranda/departmental orders

pp. 1-3

The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied several queries citing "personal information" under Section 8(1) without detailed reasoning and directed the petitioner to different departments for other queries, stating some info was in the "public domain"

pp. 3-4

Both the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeals, with the CIC claiming the matter was barred by res judicata and that eligible information had already been furnished

pp. 4-5

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

02Issues

i.1. Whether a PIO can validly reject an RTI request by merely citing Section 8(1) without assigning specific reasons or examining the severability of information

pp. 5 / para. 11-12

ii.2. Whether a PIO is obligated to consolidate information from different branches of the same public authority rather than directing the applicant to various departments

pp. 5 / para. 6-7

iii.3. Whether the principle of res judicata can be invoked to dismiss a second appeal without a clear analysis of the identity of the subject matter

p. 7 / para. 14

03Law Applied

Section 5(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates PIOs to render reasonable assistance

p. 5

Section 5(4) and 5(5), which empower PIOs to seek assistance from other officers within the same authority

p. 5

Section 6(3) regarding the mandatory transfer of applications to other public authorities within five days

p. 5

Section 8(1)(j) regarding the exemption of personal information

p. 6

Section 10, which mandates the "doctrine of severability" for non-exempt portions of a record

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 2 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the PIO’s approach of "driving the applicant from pillar to post" was contrary to the mandate of the Act

p. 5

Under Section 5(4), the PIO had the statutory power to collect information from various wings of the same authority rather than forcing the petitioner to approach different branches

p. 5

Regarding the denial of information, the Court held that a "bare reference" to Section 8(1) without explaining how the disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy is insufficient

p. 6

The Court further noted that the respondents failed to apply the doctrine of severability under Section 10 for records containing both exempt and non-exempt data

p. 6

the Court found the CIC's invocation of res judicata flawed as it lacked a comparative analysis of the previous and current subject matter

p. 7