Orders were issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi on 11 appeals from 6 individuals (on 13th February 2024) and on 7 appeals from 4 individuals (on 23rd July 2024) who had requested information from the Auroville Foundation under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The names of the applicants and the number of RTIs filed by each, in 2022:
Zach Mathew - 2
Yash Marwah - 3
Parvesh Debuka - 3 (Show cause notice ordered)
Nityanand Jayaraman - 1 (Show cause notice ordered)
Amrita Bhattacharjee - 1
Deepika Kumaravel - 1
This article covers Parvesh Debuka’s RTIs. Articles covering the remaining RTIs and those from 2023 will appear subsequently.
The first of Parvesh Debuka’s RTIs sought information essentially on the guidelines and criteria for posting information under the ‘Secretariat AVF’ Auronet account and the extent to which Dr Jayanti Ravi, the Secretary of the AVF, provides oversight and approval for content posted under the ‘Secretariat AVF’ Auronet account.
The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) of the Secretariat replied to him that “Internal matters cannot be disclosed to the third party.” When the applicant appealed against the reply to the FAA (First Appellate Authority - Secretary, Auroville Foundation) she “upheld the reply given by the CPIO”.
The second RTI pointed out that the office order dated 1st June 2022 constituting FAMC said it was “issued with the approval of the Chairman, Auroville Foundation” and signed by Dr. Jayanti Ravi but the office order issued on 28th of the same month on matters concerning Land Board said “it was issued with the approval of the competent authority” and was signed by Dr. G. Seetharaman, O.S.D. Parvesh Debuka wanted to know the documentation showing who made these changes and when. He also asked which of them is invalid, and if both are valid, how?
The main part of the CPIO's reply said, “…any communications will be circulated with the approval of the competent authority by the office of the Secretary of Foundation”. On appeal, the FAA, the Secretary of the AVF, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
The third RTI, citing the removal of access to the auroville .org.in from Entry Board, Entry Service and RAS, asked for the identities of the Administrators of auroville.org.in mailboxes, who authorised their appointments and if any of the Administators have criminal cases against them.
The CPIO replied, “Internal matters cannot be disclosed to the third party” and the FAA upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Hon’ble Commissioner Smt. Anandi Ramalingam of the CIC clubbed together the above three RTIs of Parvesh Debuka, heard the representatives of the applicant and CPIO on 12th February 2024 and issued the following order dated next day the13th of February 2024:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the replies given by the respondent in all the cases were evasive and misleading. The respondent, without applying his mind, had simply denied the information and most importantly they had not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Besides, the CPIO has remained absent without seeking leave and the representatives of the CPIO have failed to assist the Commission properly. It also raises a reasonable doubt Page 6 of 7 that the denial of information is with mala fide intent. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to present CPIO as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him / her as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not responding to the RTI applications and remaining absent in the hearing. The present PIO is under obligation to serve copy of this order on the CPIO and secure his explanation. All the written explanations must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide proper replies/information to all three RTI applications of the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of .(1)
An order of the CIC dated 13th February 2024 was reported by the RA WCom Mass bulletin of 12th July 2024. (2). I sent an email to the CPIO, Secretariat, Auroville Foundation copied to workingcom@auroville.org.in referring to the CIC Order, on 13th July 2024 querying if the CIC orders have been complied with and if so what the response, if any, from the CIC was.
"The Right to Information is a fundamental human right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression which also encompasses seeking, acquiring, and disseminating information. In a democratic framework, the citizens deserve to know about government policies, developmental schemes, and how these policies and schemes are materialized on the ground.
"The framers of the Indian constitution had also realized the significance of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in a democracy. The preamble of the constitution talks about ‘liberty of thought’ and Article 19(1) (A) guarantees it as a fundamental right." (3)
The Right to Information (RTI) is an act of the Parliament of India that sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to information. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. In case of a matter involving a petitioner's life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours. The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request information formally. The Act extends to the whole of India. It covers all the constitutional authorities, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. (4)
It is the first time that the Secretariat of Auroville Foundation, incidentally while under a senior bureaucrat, gave evasive and misleading replies to an RTI request for information and on an appeal by the concerned citizen the Central Information Commission ordered issue of show cause notice to the CPIO. (There were two show cause notices, the next article will cover the other one.)
Ref: 1 Central Information Commission 2. RA WCom, Mass bulletin of 12th July 2024 3. Akademike, Articles on legal issues 4. Wikipedia
A copy of the full CIC Order is available at this link: