WAJAHAT SHABIR
SRINAGAR: A series of orders of the Central Information Commission has exposed a string of shortcomings in the handling of Right to Information applications by public authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, with the Commission flagging deemed refusal, non-compliance with its directions, missing official records and repeated “mechanical disposal” of RTI applications.
The strongest observations have come in an RTI case concerning the Industries Development Corporation Limited (SICOP), where the CIC has continued show-cause proceedings against the concerned CPIO after finding that an RTI applicant was initially denied information relating to the construction of an EVM warehouse at the Tehsil Office Baramulla.
The applicant had sought tender documents, allotment details, comparative statements of bidders, performance security, technical and administrative sanctions, sanctioned estimates, funds released and the government order concerning accommodation of local unit holders in the work.
The CIC had earlier held that failure to provide a reply within the prescribed period amounted to “deemed refusal” and said non-compliance with the First Appellate Authority’s order directing supply of information within seven days amounted to a “gross violation” of the RTI Act.
The Commission also took exception to the CPIO’s absence from an earlier hearing and ordered a show-cause response under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The matter did not end there. Although the subsequent CPIO claimed that he had assumed additional charge only in October 2025 and later supplied a reply to the applicant, the CIC found that he had failed to properly comply with its interim directions and had not placed the information allegedly supplied on record.
The Commission said the CPIO had not forwarded its interim decision to the officials responsible for the earlier omissions and had failed to provide the details of the information supposedly enclosed with the July 10, 2026 reply. It also observed that the circumstances appeared to suggest that both the appellant and the CPIO had sought to mislead the Commission.
The CPIO has now been given another opportunity to explain the omissions, while the concerned officials have been directed to file their own statements. The Commission has warned that failure or laxity could lead to ex-parte imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, with another show-cause hearing scheduled.
The pattern is also visible in three separate RTI orders involving the Directorate of School Education Kashmir.
In one case, an applicant sought extensive information concerning his service case, including enquiry reports, correspondence with the Crime Branch, GPF-related complaints, action taken on representations, verification of service records and the status of several enquiries. The CIC found that the CPIO and First Appellate Authority had failed to properly assess the queries under the RTI Act before issuing what amounted to a blanket denial.
The Commission specifically said the authorities had failed to justify reliance on Section 8(1)(h), and that the CPIO had not even clarified whether the information sought on individual points was available in the records. It consequently took exception to the “mechanical disposal” of the RTI application and first appeal.
The CIC directed the CPIO to issue a fresh, point-wise response after examining each query under the relevant RTI provisions and checking whether the records were actually available.
Another School Education case concerned records dating back to appointments made in 1983, including appointment lists, adjustment orders, documents submitted by selected candidates and records relating to a teacher posted in Gulab Bagh.
Here, the department told the Commission that some records could not be traced. The adjustment orders were stated to be unavailable, documents submitted at the time of appointment could not be traced and the appointment order and other documents relating to another teacher were also unavailable. The department also stated that GPF details had not been provided because the case was under Crime Branch investigation.
The CIC found the reply on the appointment-list query ambiguous and inconclusive and directed the CPIO to issue a revised response concerning the specified March 1, 1983 appointment list. The CPIO and FAA were also cautioned against mechanical disposal of RTI applications in future.
A separate School Education RTI sought information about appointment lists dating back to the 1980s and 1990s, along with details of alleged fake appointees, FIRs, terminated employees and teachers still working in the department.
The replies placed before the CIC contained several significant individual cases.
The Shopian Chief Education Office reported that, according to available records, one teacher had been found during an enquiry to have entered the department through a fraudulent manner. The teacher had been chargesheeted by the Directorate of School Education and was reportedly not attending duties.
The Kulgam authorities, meanwhile, reported that a former teacher had been terminated through a DSEK order, while another teacher was facing investigation in an FIR registered by the Crime Branch and was facing trial.
In another response cited in the same CIC order, the Nishat zone stated that it had no fake appointee from the specified periods in its available records, but said two teaching officials were presently absconding from their duties, with their cases under process before higher authorities.
The CIC, however, did not treat these replies as establishing a wider figure of fake appointments. Instead, it held that the RTI request was excessively broad, involved third-party personal information over more than three decades and had not been properly examined under the relevant RTI provisions. The Commission again took exception to the mechanical disposal of the application and first appeal, though it ultimately found no scope for granting further relief in that particular appeal.
A separate appeal concerned an RTI application seeking information about the reported bomb threat/rumour at Jammu Railway Station on June 1, 2025, including any FIR, the source of the information, arrests, investigation status and details of other FIRs and departmental proceedings.
The record shows that the applicant claimed no response had been received within the stipulated 48-hour period and also said no order had been received from the First Appellate Authority.
However, the CIC ultimately found that the information sought related to Jammu Police, rather than the office of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. It also noted that substantially similar information had already been sought from the SSP Jammu and that a response had been sent to the applicant through WhatsApp after postal correspondence was returned. The appeal was therefore rejected on merits.
In another case concerning Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, an applicant sought documents relating to the change of name on an electricity connection that had earlier stood in his deceased father’s name.
The JPDCL CPIO had relied on the concerned consumer’s refusal to disclose her documents under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The applicant challenged the response, arguing that the connection pertained to his house and his deceased father.
The CIC, however, did not examine the substantive dispute in the present appeal. It found that the case was a duplicate registration of another second appeal which had already been heard and decided a day earlier, and dismissed the matter as infructuous.
