President’s Secretariat Shielded by CIC: A Citizen’s RTI Battle for Accountability

RTI Applicant: Shri Rajnish Ratnakar

CIC File No.: CIC/PRSEC/A/2025/607430

Hearing & Decision Date: 20.05.2025

Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya, Chief Information Commissioner

Public Authority Involved: President’s Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi

Headnote

This blog exposes how the President’s Secretariat of India blatantly violated the RTI Act and how the Central Information Commission (CIC), led by Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya, protected this erring public authority through a perverse, cryptic, and deliberately evasive decision—betraying the very spirit of transparency enshrined in the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The author, Shri Rajnish Ratnakar, filed an RTI demanding accountability on institutional non-compliance, only to be met with evasion, procedural opacity, and total abdication of duty by constitutional watchdogs.

RTI Information Sought (Dated 04.12.2024)

1. Names/designations of public servants responsible for uploading RTI responses/appeals on the Secretariat's website.
2. Total RTI applications/appeals not uploaded as per DoPT’s guidelines.
3. FAA orders post 07.10.2016 directing disclosure due to CPIO's denial.
4. Reasons for disobeying Section 4(1)(c) & (d) of the RTI Act.
5. Steps taken to implement proactive disclosure norms by DoPT.

The CPIO’s Reply (Dated 26.12.2024): Evasion Masquerading as Response

- Claimed info not available in the “format” sought.
- Dubbed the queries as beyond the definition of “information” under Section 2(f).
- Cited Section 7(9) to claim “disproportionate diversion of resources.”
- Falsely invoked Section 8(1)(j) – irrelevant as no personal information was sought.

This reply reeks of institutional arrogance and deliberate deflection—violating the mandate of public accountability.

FAA's Action (13.02.2025): No Action At All

The First Appellate Authority endorsed the CPIO’s reply verbatim without applying mind or examining the gross violations of the RTI framework.

CIC’s Decision (20.05.2025): Legal Abdication by the Chief Information Commissioner

Despite glaring non-compliance, CIC Heeralal Samariya ruled:

“The queries have been appropriately responded to… No further intervention warranted.”

No penalty. No direction. No compliance order.

A complete whitewash in favour of the President’s Secretariat.

Legal and Constitutional Violations

1. Violation of Section 4(1)(b), (c), (d) – mandatory proactive disclosure ignored.
2. DoPT OM dated 07.10.2016 mandating publication of RTI/FAA responses – disobeyed.
3. No recommendation under Section 25(5) by CIC to ensure compliance.
4. Perversity and non-application of mind by CIC – ignoring clear illegality in CPIO’s reply.
5. CIC failed to exercise powers under Section 19(8)(a) and 19(8)(b) to enforce transparency.

Who Will Punish the Central Information Commission?

Under Section 14 of the RTI Act, a CIC can be removed by the President for proven misconduct or incapacity.

But what if the CIC’s misconduct involves shielding the President’s own Secretariat from accountability?

This is a conflict of interest of constitutional proportions.

Where do citizens go when the watchdog protects the offender?

Slogans for Transparency and Citizen Power

🗣 “Rajnish Ratnakar vs Rashtrapati Bhavan – The RTI Fight of Truth!”
🗣 “No More Secrecy in the President’s Office – Publish Every RTI!”
🗣 “RTI Is My Right, Not a Royal Courtesy!”
🗣 “CIC Must Be Independent, Not Submissive!”
🗣 “Section 14 Must Punish CIC for Betraying Section 12(4)!”
🗣 “Down With Paper Democracy – Uphold RTI in Practice!”

Final Word: The People Must Question the Palace

This is not just about the President’s Secretariat or a rogue CIC.

This is about whether constitutional offices are accountable to the people or above the law.

Shri Rajnish Ratnakar has shown uncommon courage by exposing institutional rot through the RTI route.

When citizen warriors rise, even palaces tremble.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

                                                                                              The Judiciary's Silent Breach – A Call for Constitutional Accountability The bedrock of India's democracy rests upon the principle of justice, meticulously crafted and upheld by its judiciary. However, a concerning "doctrinal vacuum" has emerged, where the Supreme Court, despite pronouncing landmark rulings, lacks a clear internal oversight policy to ensure the implementation of its own judgments. This critical oversight is not merely a procedu...
Read more
Image
    Unmasking the Cobra: A Call to Reclaim India's Constitutional Promise India, the world's largest democracy, stands at a critical juncture. The narrative of its democratic struggles is often simplified, but the truth, as unearthed by deep legal and administrative scrutiny, is far more alarming: India’s democracy is not failing—it is being systematically sabotaged. This is the urgent, unvarnished truth unveiled by constitutional activist Rajnish Ratnakar in his groundbreaking manifesto, "The Cobra Codex: Eleven Theories of Constitutional Betrayal and Democratic Resurrection." Ratnakar, the visionary Founder of RTI & Public Grievance Warriors of India, argues that through meticulous RTI activism, legal audits, and doctrinal analysis, he has uncovered not just loopholes, but deliberate designs to bury citizen power. This is more than inefficiency; it is a calculated erosion of accountability, allowing impunity to flourish. His manifesto presents eleven pier...
Read more
    Undermining the Right to Information: A Case Study in Sabotaging Transparency and Disobeying Supreme Court Mandates The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering citizens to seek accountability and transparency from public authorities. Yet, as a recent case before the Central Information Commission (CIC) reveals, the very mechanisms designed to ensure this transparency are, at times, systematically subverted, leading to a critical "loss to democracy." This particular case highlights how crucial information is allegedly hidden from an informed citizenry, and how even the custodians of the Act may contribute to this opacity. The Supreme Court's Crucial Stance: The Namit Sharma Judgment At the heart of this matter lies the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Namit Sharma vs. Union of India (September 13, 2012) . This judgment, as the appellant in this case rightly pointed out, raised profound observations ...
Read more