Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

CIC is the Apex Body of Central Government Organizations' and has the same Status of SIC. Their decisions / judgments can be referred to, but are pronounced based on a case to case basis. Hence CIC decisions are not binding on state owned pubic authorities.

Yes, but information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation have not been excluded.

No. The High Court of Delhi in Union of India and others Vs CIC, set aside the decision of the CIC declaring 'Ministers as public authority, under Sec 2(h) of the Act.

Opinion and advice as recorded in the files and opinion obtained on file from other sections/departments are information. A request to generate and provide opinion or advice is not envisaged under the Act.

An Office Memorandum has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Central Nodal Agency to oversee implementation of the RTI Act regarding collecting and compiling information by the PIO. As per Sec 7(a), information shall normally be given in the form in which it is sought by the requestor. This does not mean that s/he has to compile, re-shape or supply the conclusion from the material held by the Public Authority. S/he is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him/her. The PIO is not expected to answer to non-existent information or hypothetical questions. In this regard it has been made clear that only such information which exists and is held in the public domain need to be disclosed.

An Office Memorandum has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Central Nodal Agency to oversee implementation of the RTI Act regarding collecting and compiling information by the PIO.  As per Sec 7(a), information shall normally be given in the form in which it is sought by the requestor.  This does not mean that s/he has to compile, re-shape or supply the conclusion from the material held by the Public Authority.  S/he is not required to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to him/her.  The PIO is not expected to answer to non-existent information or hypothetical questions.  In this regard it has been made clear that only such information which exists and is held in the public domain need to be disclosed. 

No, she/he has to first file the application in the PA with the PIO. If the PIO fails to provide information within the time limit or provide incorrect, false information, s/he can prefer first appeal with the FAA of the Public Authority. The citizen can approach the SIC only after the first appeal is disposed by the PA.

However the citizen can file a complaint before the SIC if s/he has been unable to submit a request to PIO as no such officer has been appointed or because the PIO has refused to accept his application for information or appeal under the Act.

Though private organizations do not come within the purview of this Act, a citizen can get information from the regulatory body of the private firm. For eg., for collecting details from ration shops (which is a private dealer) the citizen can apply to the Taluk Supply Officer and get details. Similarly, co-operative societies do not come with the purview of the Act, but application can be made to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and information collected on such societies.

The Information Commission can require the PA to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him/her under Sec 19 (8) (b) of RTI Act.

PIO is the provider of information and not the seeker. There is no provision in the Act to consider such appeals or complaints by the PIO against an order of the first Appellate Authority.

The PIO and AA are statutorily designated offices. They shall perform their function as per the provisions of the Act and hence cannot be instructed or forced to take decisions pertaining to RTI.

Question: Can a request be denied if it is too big? If not, how can such requests be handled best? How much information can a citizen request in one application? or If one asks 20-30 different sets of information in one application, should it be given? Or should the citizen be asked to put in fresh applications for each point of information requested and also be asked to pay application fees every time?

ANSWER: The Act does not permit the rejection of an application simply because it relates to a large number of documents.. If a large number of records are involved in relation to a request, the PIO can contact the requestor / summon him to the office to verify the records and facilitate photocopies of the required documents on payment of the prescribed fee.This recognizes the fact that in some cases at least, a broad application may be submitted simply because the requestor was not sure what was available.

The Act limits the APIO's role to receiving application for information and forwarding the same to the PIO concerned. In the normal course reply has to be given by the PIO and in his/her absence in certain cases where the last date for responding expires, there is not legal issue if the APIO replies on behalf of the PIO.

As per Section 19 (6), an appeal shall be normally disposed within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal or with an extended period not exceeding 45 days from the date of filing, and the reasons shall be recorded in writing. The FAA has the powers to summon the applicant and hear him if found necessary.

No, The PIO shall deal with the application and give reasonable assistance to rectify the defect (not signed, application fee not remitted, etc.)

Yes, all citizens have the right to information as per RTI Act Section 2(J). Whether the applicant is an insider or an outsider is not a matter of consideration.

There is no such provision for interim reply. But PIO can invoke provisions of Sec 7 (9) and request the applicant to visit his/her office (with date and time specified) and inspect the files and take photocopies by paying the fees as prescribed by Rules.

The information can be denied only if,

i.The disclosure would amount to contempt of court.

ii.The disclosure is expressly forbidden to be published by a court.

No. Section 8(1)(h) is applicable only to investigation under Cr. P C and not disciplinary proceedings. Even in the case of an investigation under the Cr. PC, the information can be denied only if the disclosure of this information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.

Section 8(3) is the provision to disclose the information pertaining to exemptions other than under section 8(1)(a), 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (i) after 20 years. Hence information except section 8(1)(a), 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (i) need not be disclosed after 20 years from the period it has been computed.

IT returns filed by an assesse are confidential information which include details of commercial activities and that it relates to 3rd party information, which are submitted in fiduciary capacities. It is exempted under Sec 8(1)(j) and there is no public interest involved in the matter.

This falls under the category of 'personal information' which is exempt from disclosure under Sec 8(1) (j) unless larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

Yes. In this case, they will have to pay the statutory fee fixed by the respective PA and not the fee as prescribed under RTI rules.

No. The right to information is for inspection of records and to get certified copies of records/documents. If the citizen is unable to submit an application for information as above, the PIO shall give all reasonable assistance to access the information.The PA is not expected to consolidate or provide information held by them in any prescribed proforma or format.

No. The records can be inspected by the citizen and he can take copies of the documents and take necessary notes. PIO needs to give information only in the form available in the records.

No. The decision of the PIO can be challenged only by an appeal before the Apellate Authority(AA) or a complainant before the Information Commission(IC). The decision of the AA can be challenged only by an appeal before the IC.

The details regarding disciplinary procedure against an employee can be revealed only if it is can be established that the public interest outweighs individual privacy. If there is no convincing public interest in the disciplinary procedure / process of an employee, such aspects need not be revealed.

As per Supreme Court ruling in a case, the disclosure of 'name and address of the Selection Board would exfacia endanger their lives or physical safety'. Hence this need not be disclosed.

Yes, it can be denied if it would made into the privacy of the individual.

There is no provision for asking for more time.

When a request for information is made to a PA, it is a request made to the PIO who has been designated by the PA to provide information. Here the PA or its administrative unit which receives the application has to hand over the same to the PIO concerned for disposal.

Those parts of the Service Book which are of a personal nature need not be revealed, whereas those parts of the service book like employment details , salary, promotion, leave particulars, ( excluding those availed under medical ground) etc., can be revealed .

No. The information shall be disclosed if the public interest in disclosure (as claimed by the applicant) outweighs in importance the possible harm or damage to the interest of the third party.

The travel expenses are met from the state exchequer, and hence disclosure cannot be denied on the grounds of 'personal information', 'not a public activity' or 'no public interest involved'. Travel performed as part of official duty and the records related to the same are public records and therefore a citizen has the right to seek disclosure.

Question: The revision of charges/fees effected vide G.O(P)No.409/2014/FIN Dated,23-09-2014 of Finance (Revenue Monitoring Cell) Department of Government of Kerala has any relevance to the fee prescribed vide Rules 3 and 4 of the Kerala Right To Information (Regulation Of Fee And Cost) Rules, 2006?

Answer: The GO mentioned above relates to the revision of user fees for various services offered by the Departments. It has no relevance to the Kerala RTI (Regulation of Fee & Cost Rules) 2006 and 2007.

Section 4 is designed to ensure that public authorities give certain information which is important to the public voluntarily at every level of operation. If implemented properly, Section 4 will reduce the workload of officials and public authorities because it will mean that information which is regularly needed by the public can be accessed by them without the need for a specific request.

No, there is no need to discontinue the conventional and informal practice of giving information on verbal request. The RTI Act does not put an end to such practices. If information can be given without delay on verbal request it is better to give such information to the requestor rather than require him/her to put in a formal application. This helps reduce paperwork for the public authority and promotes the confidence of citizens in the administration.

This category of information usually relates to the work of law enforcement and security agencies, government hospitals, health sector officials, and so on. Detailed guidelines are available in other jurisdictions in the world for dealing with such applications. The State Government will have to come up with guidelines for treating such information requests with due diligence and urgency. However, information requests made under suicide threats must be dealt with due caution and the applicant must be reassured that action will be taken in good faith while dealing with his/her information request.

The communication shall include

1.reasons for the rejection (provision under section 8(1) or 9

2.particular of Appellate Authority

3.Time limit for filing the appeal (30 days)

The exact amount together with the the basis of calculation shall be intimated by the PIO in the demand notice. The applicant has the right to appeal.

There is no limit. There shall be as many PIOs as may be necessary to provide the information.

The Government has not specified the mode of fee payment for applications received by email. They could provide for online payment options. Or the applicant may be sent an email asking him/her to pay fees in cash or send proof of payment by any other means prescribed by the Government in the rules.

Yes. Aspects of the file which are pending decisions also need to be disclosed unless exempted under Section 8 or 9.

No, the RTI Act makes it clear that the PIO has the power to transfer an application or parts of it, if this relates to information held by another public authority or relates more closely to the activities of any other public authority [Section 6(3)]. The PIO is not responsible for collecting information from other public authorities especially if it is likely to take more than 30 days to secure such information, it is better to transfer the application to the concerned PIO and inform the applicant about the transfer in writing immediately Section 6 (3). This amounts to action taken in good faith and will not attract any penalty to the PIO.

No. The PIO will not invite any penalty in such cases. The 30-day clock stops ticking from the date of dispatching the intimation order issued by the PIO and restarts on the date on which the applicant pays the additional fee. For example, if the PIO dispatches the intimation later on the 5th-day from, the date of receipt for the complete application only 5 days would have elapsed from the 30-day limit. The clock will restart on the date on which the applicant pays the additional fees. The PIO will have to provide the information within 25 days from the date of payment of additional fees. If the applicant chooses to seek a review of the additional fee from the FAA or the SIC the period taken for giving a decision on this matter will not be included in the 30-day limit.

Question: Is the PIO duty-bound to provide information within 30 days even in such cases?

Answer: No. The PIO does not have a duty to provide information to the applicant in such cases. The RI Act states very clearly that the PIO will provide access to information only upon payment of additional fee as may be determined [Sec. 7(1)] by him/her. However, if the PIO does not receive a response to his/her intimation letter from the applicant then the PIO need not take any action.. This action of the PIO will not amount to unreasonable denial of information and will therefore not invite any penalty. It is advisable for the Government to specify the time period limit for such cases in the rues or in the guidelines.

This is a grey area and decision in regard to this is pending before the High Court of Kerala. However, Government has issued a clarification that if the services for providing certificate/copies of department like Revenue, Registration, Survey, etc., are fixed, the statutory fee for obtaining such certificates/ services cannot be circumvented by RTI. However the RTI applicant is at liberty to examine the file, if such file is not of a confidential nature by due process.

No. There is nothing in the RTI Act that states that information disclosed proactively should not be provided to a citizen on request. Section 4(4) requires that all materials disseminated under this Act should be available with the PIO and as far as possible in electronic format. The purpose behind this requirement is that the citizen need not wait for 30 days to get access to information that is already being proactively disseminated. If available in a printed format the PIO may make copies of the same or provide photocopies of the relevant pages to the citizen. If such information is available only in electronic format, the same may be provided on floppies, diskettes, CDs, or in the form of printouts upon payment of fees at rates prescribed by the Government.

The RTI Act is meant for giving citizens easy access to information held by public authorities. There is nothing in this law to stop the APIO from giving information under his/her possession to the information requestor. As PIO is the statutorily designated officer responsible for providing information under the Act, it would be better for the APIO to forward the information under intimation to the PIO.

PSUs fall within the category of public authorities. But if an applicant seeks information about trade secrets or Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) the disclosure of which will affect the competitive position of that PSU, such information may not be given unless there is a larger public interest involved. Even if the law constituting the PSU does not allow disclosure of certain categories of information, the RTI Act, 2005 overrides any such law in existence. Hence the designated PIO for the organization under question has to provide the information asked under RTI Act.

Yes. Every public authority should assess the information needs of people who contact it from time to time and make available information to all requestors.

The Government should come out with detailed guidelines regarding the protection available for copyrighted materials and intellectual property rights held by public authorities. If disclosure of building plans and designs affect the economic or security interests of the State in a prejudicial manner then such information falls under Section 8(1)(a). But if the PIO is able to justify before the concerned appellate authority that s/he had provided reasons for denying access to such plans, no penalty will be imposed. The appellate authority is appointed precisely to give quasi-judicial decisions on the finer points of the law. Therefore, if the PIO has taken action in good faith the appellate authority may not impose a penalty even if it decides in favour of disclosing such plans and designs.

No. Proactive disclosure of information could be made possible through various print and electronic means. It may be disseminated in one or a series of documents in print. They could all be uploaded on the website of the concerned department. Certain categories of information such as the name and designation of the officers concerned in each office, broad norms of service etc., may be put up on notice boards. Information regarding beneficiaries of various development schemes, concessions and permits may be published from time to time on the website.

Updating of information is very important under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This is a statutory requirement. The State Government will have to come out with general instructions for time-bound updating of all categories of information. Every public authority may ,in turn, issue detailed instructions for updating information that is specific to its functions. For example, information on subsidy schemes (see Sec.4(xii)) needs to be published and updated regularly if it is to be useful in terms of enabling the public to verify whether they are receiving proper subsidies and ensure that corruption is minimized.

The information shall ordinarily be given in the form in which is sought (in the form under section 2(j)). However, the information can be given in another form if,

i.it would otherwise disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or

ii.would be detrimental to the safety or

iii.preservation of records in question

Yes, PIOs shall be designated in all offices/administrative units.However at the sub-divisional level or sub-district level, the public authority can designate an APIO for receiving application / appeal for forwarding to the PIO concerned.

Question: Periodic weeding of files results in the destruction of many documents which are not important enough to maintain for as long as 20 years or more. So it will not be possible to give such information after they have been destroyed. Will the PIO be penalized for this?

Answer: If a record has been destroyed legally,the question of penalization does not arise. The PIO cannot create a record in order to meet a request. Hence the information cannot be given if it has been legally destroyed.

No, the APIO is not an assistant to the PIO. An APIO may be appointed at the sub-district or sub-divisional level where a public authority may not have an office or administrative unit designated a PIO. He is expected to receive applications and appeals and forward the same to the PIO concerned.

No. The PIO is required to accept applications made to him/her only. The APIO is required to accept applications addressed to the PIOs of PA for which he/she is designated as APIO.

Not necessarily so. This may be private or personal information that is exempted under Section 8(1)(j). Again, this must be decided on a case-by-case basis. If larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, it must be given.

While it is possible that some elements may misuse the RTI Act, there is very little opportunity for the PIO to verify the intentions of the applicant. While the personal contact details of the applicant are available,it is impossible to verify his/her intention in seeking information. Furthermore, Section 6(2) makes it clear that the applicant will not be required to give reasons for seeking information. An honest and sincere officer need not fear blackmailing. The best way to avoid blackmailing is to make available as much information as possible proactively. As far as possible upload all information, disclosed upon request, on the website. When information is accessible by a large number of people the possibility of blackmailing may not arise.

PIO cannot reject an RTI application stating that it is not typewritten. Sec 6(1) of the Act specially provides for application to be submitted 'in writing' and not necessarily in a typed form.

The PIO is required to take a decision about giving or not giving information only if the application is complete in all respects. An application is complete only if it has all contact details about the applicant and the nature of the information requested along with proof of payment of application fees or proof of BPL identity for claiming fee waiver. An APIO may forward only complete applications to the PIO. If the applicant has submitted an incomplete application, it is the duty of the PIO or the APIO, as the case may be, to request the applicant to complete the application in all respects to facilitate the commencement of processing of the information request by the PIO.

It is important for the Government to prepare detailed guidance notes for PIOs and FAAs explaining each of the exemptions in section 8 and giving practical examples to assist them to apply these exemptions properly.State Government and Information Commission should also be involved in the process. Nevertheless, it is not possible to provide guidelines on exemptions applicable to all situations. It is important for Information Commissions and the Courts to publish their judgments to provide additional guidance to officials and the public which will become part of the developing case law on RTI. International experience supports the production of an 'annotated Act' incorporating the explanatory and interpretative portions of judgments explaining every provision. In Canada and Queensland, Australia for example, their information access case law is uploaded on-line and every provision therein has links to relevant judgments. The citizens can also refer the website of Kerala SIC, GoI and High Courts for similar cases, now that the Act has been in existence for more than 15 years.

One suggestion is to mark every page of a document accessed under the RTI Act with a rubber stamp impression saying "Documents released under the RTI Act contains XX pages". If electronic files are requested the same may be provided in pdf or tiff format on floppies or CDs. This will also obviate the need for certifying the documents separately if the requestor wishes to use the same in some litigation.

Section 4 deals with proactive disclosure, which is simply to publish and disseminate key information routinely in a manner and form which is easily accessible and understood by the public [Sections 4 (3) and 4 (4) of the RTI Act which specifically require this]; The 17 subsections of Section 4 are 17 categories of information that a public authority is required to prepare and disseminate proactively through books, notice boards, print, and electronic media. Most of the information required to be published proactively under this section may already be available within the public authority in a scattered manner. These will need to be collected and collated to fulfill the requirement of Section 4. Several officials/offices are favouring this, within Section 4 as it will help them streamline their own housekeeping procedures.

It in the opinion of SIC, if the PIO has without any reasonable cause and persistently failed to furnish information or has knowingly given incorrect incomplete or misleading information or destroyed or obstructed in any manner in furnishing information, the SIC shall recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to him/her.

i.For not accepting the application and not providing the information within the time limit, without reasonable cause.

ii.For malafidely denying the information.

iii.For knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information

iv.For destroying the information

v.For obstructing in any manner in furnishing of solicited information.

i.It will be deemed that the request was rejected.

ii.Later the information shall be given free of cost; if directed by First Appeal Authority (FAA) / Secondary Appeal Authority (SAA)

iii.Will attract provisions of Section 20.

The information sought for, in an application under the RTI Act can be denied only for any of the reasons given under section 8(1) or 9 of the RTI Act. The information cannot be denied under the provisions of other laws.

i.For Kerala State Govt. departments

      .       Court fee stamp

      a.By remittance in treasury

      b.By cash remittance in the office of the public authority

      c.By DD/bankers cheque

ii.For Central Govt. Offices state and Central PSUs and other public Authorities

       .By cash remittance in the office of the public authority

     a.By DD/Bankers Cheque

i.For not accepting the application and not providing the information within the time limit, without reasonable cause.

ii.For malafide denial of information.

iii.For knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information

iv.For destroying the information

v.For obstructing in any manner,furnishing of information.

The APIO has only two responsibilities under the RTI Act- Receive applications for information from citizens and forward them to the concerned PIO immediately or within five days.An APIO is liable for penalty if he/she refuses to receive applications or appeals. He/she is also liable for a penalty if he/she does not forward the same to the appropriate authority within the 5-day deadline.

In this case the PIO can reject the request stating that it has been legally destroyed. However the PA should maintain disposal register with date and details of files disposed. S/he is not expected to create information.

Personal information does not mean information related to the information seeker, but about a third party. Hence the Section states about 'unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual'. It is seen that majority of appeals revolve around the exemption on personal information. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India based on the Supreme Court judgement dated 3rd October 2012 (Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC and others) held as follows:

Personal information does not mean information related to the information seeker, but about a third party.  Hence the Section states about ‘unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual’.  It is seen that majority of appeals revolve around the exemption on personal information.  The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India based on the Supreme Court judgement dated 3^rd October 2012 (Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC and others) held as follows:

“The performance of an employee is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, on the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual”.

In law, fiduciary denotes trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary. An example is the relationship between banker and depositor. Here the fiduciary has the duty to act in the best interest of other party (beneficiary).

It means the opinion noted in the note file by some officer at some point of time. The PIO is not expected to give his/her opinion on a request but just to furnish the matter requested as in the file.

As per Section 22, RTI Act has an overriding effect over any law for the time being in force. Hence such information even if the Department manuals prevent the disclosure has to be disclosed if requested under RTI

Any material in, any tangible form, is deemed an information vide RTI Act Sec 2(f). e.g., Files including file noting, registers, records, equipment, vehicles, buildings etc., Information related to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law is also information under the RTI Act.

The right to information is the right of a citizen for getting information which is held by, or under the control of the public authority. The Act does not provide for generating new information and collecting information by taking administrative action. e.g., Issue of new certificates, taking action on complaints or other application for administrative action does not come under the purview of the Act.

As per Sec 10 of the Act, whenever a request for access to information is rejected as it is exempted from disclosure, part of the record that does not contain any exempted information, can reasonably be severed from such part that contains the exempted information and provided.

Here the PIO shall within 5 days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to the 3rd party of the request and the PIO's intention to disclose the information or record. The 3rd party may make a submission regarding whether the information should be disclosed or not. The submission shall be kept in view while taking a decision before disclosing by the PIO.

PIO has to give reasons of rejection and not merely quote the bare clause of the Act.  The PIO is expected to intimate clearly as to how s/he came to the conclusion that rule 8(1) was applicable in the particular case, through a speaking order.  The applicant, is entitled to receive clear-cut replies for all his/her queries.  S/he has to give his/her name, and also the time limit within which appeal can be preferred and also the name, address of Appellate officer in his/her communication.

Sometimes information may fall under exemption under Sec 8, but still PIO can disclose ‘if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests’.  In such cases the PIO may record the following:

•   factors favoring public interest in disclosure

• factors favoring non-disclosure

• Documents produced by requester as evidence to prove public interest.

• How and why the factors favoring the above are more important as to take a decision to disclose or not.

As per the provisions of Sec 19(6), 1st appeal shall be disposed within 30 days or within such extended period not exceeding 45 days, from the date of receipt. While disposing the 1st appeal, the first Appellate Authority may give notice to the PIO / deemed PIO and to the appellant, conduct a hearing (if required), pass speaking orders and communicate to the PIO under intimation to the applicant.

The Government will have to issue detailed guidelines as regards the procedure to be followed for collecting samples. Witnesses may be required to be present for the purpose of certifying the samples collected.

Section 10(2)(b) of the RTI Act makes it clear that the PIO is not always the deciding authority for granting partial access to records that may contain exempt information. The PIO is required to give the name and designation of the person giving the decision of partial access while intimating the same to the applicant. With the exception of cases where information requested belongs to the category of personal information where the PIO has the authority to decide whether the disclosure is in the public interest [Section 8(1)(j)], it is the public authority or the competent authority which has the power to grant full access or partial access in the public interest. The Government should specify in the rules the level at which the decision to grant complete or partial access to exempt records must be taken within the public authority. Care must be taken to ensure that decisions in such cases must be taken within the time limit stipulated in the law as there is no grace period provided for this process.

i.State PIO for the PIOs in all public authorities under the control of the state Govt.

ii.Central PIO for the PIOs in all public authorities under the control of the central Govt.

The PIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him/her. The burden of proving that s/he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO.

There is no penalty for not meeting this deadline. But it is advisable to publish as much information as possible within the deadline and give it wide media publicity so that people know that Government is earnest about implementing the law. It must be noted that the Information Commission has the power [Sec.19(8)(a)(vi)] to receive from a public authority an annual compliance report in relation to Sec.4. This reporting mechanism will technically make the public authority answerable to the Information Commission on all acts of commission and omission in relation to proactive disclosure.

Section 11 can be invoked only if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the 3rd party.

The 2019 amendment bill amended Section 13 and Section 16 of the Act, 2005, regarding term of office and conditions of service of Information Commissioners.

The application shall be submitted before the PIO/APIO of the concerned public authority.

No fee other than the prescribed fee and cost of information shall be demand from the applicant.

BPL applicants are exempted from payment of application fee and the fee prescribed by rules under the RTI Act only. Postal charges have to be met by the PAs. Moreover, as specific to Kerala State, cost of information or photocopying charges upto 20 pages is exempted. BPL applicants will have to pay if the number of photocopied pages exceed 20, at the same rate as prescribed by Rules.

The Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Vs State of Kerala in 2013 held that Co-operative Society is not a Public Authority as the society, is not controlled by the appropriate Government or is substantially financed by the Government. However when a citizen seeks for information from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is a Public Authority under Sec 2(h), such Registrar in turn can direct the Co-operative Society to furnish the information and the Co-operative Society would be bound to supply the information to the requestor.

When tenders are invited by the PA, and the eligibility of a tender or bidder is decided on the basis of tender documents. Therefore these tender documents cannot be kept secret on the ground that this has trade secrets or would lead to disclosure of commercial confidence. Hence the documents can be disclosed after the work order is issued. Once the tender process is completed and contract has been awarded, it will not influence the contract.

No, postal charges shall be met by the Public Authority.

Secretary of Panchayats, (BDO) for rural areas and Secretary, Municipal Corporation and Secretary, City Corporation are the authorities concerned.

No. All officers must assist PIOs to process applications and provide information if requested by the PIO. All such officers will be considered to be PIOs for the purpose of contravention of this Act. If a PIO is not given information by a senior when he requests their assistance, accordingly it is the senior, who will be penalized and not the PIO. To protect against a penalty, it is advisable that PIOs make this in writing.