When the PMO Hides the Truth: An RTI Appeal that Exposed More Than Just Evasion

By Rajnish Ratnakar
RTI Activist & Citizen Watchdog

 

📁 Case Details

• File Number: CIC/PMOIN/A/2024/659099
• Appellant: Shri Rajnish Ratnakar
• Respondent: Public Information Officer, Prime Minister’s Office
• Date of Decision: 20.05.2025
• Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya

 

🧾 What Was the RTI About?

On 10.09.2024, I filed an RTI application with the PMO seeking answers to basic yet crucial transparency obligations:

1. Whether the PMO is a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Whether the email ID of the Principal Secretary and other senior officials has been proactively disclosed under Section 4(1)(b).
3. If not disclosed, whether this non-compliance amounts to suppression of information and breach of RTI norms.

 

📄 What Was Supplied?

The CPIO of the PMO replied on 24.09.2024, offering:

• A generic confirmation that PMO is a public authority (as though that were ever in doubt).
• A vague link to the PMO website, avoiding a clear answer on email disclosures.
• A denial of the existence of any "separate email ID" list—without confirming whether official emails are published proactively as mandated under Section 4(1)(b)(ii) and (iv).

 

⚖️ What Was Violated?

Despite the PMO’s obligation to proactively publish email addresses and contact details of key functionaries under Section 4 of the RTI Act, the response:

• Evaded transparency,
• Concealed the actual status of disclosures, and
• Failed to acknowledge systemic non-compliance.

Further, the First Appellate Authority upheld the same misleading response on 08.10.2024, and the CIC, Shri Heeralal Samariya, disposed of the second appeal on 20.05.2025 without verifying the core facts. This is a clear abdication of duty under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act, which demands independence and rigour from the Commission.

 

🚨 Breach of the RTI Act: A Summary

RTI Act Provision	Nature of Violation
Section 4(1)(a)	Failure to maintain and disseminate records properly.
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv)	Non-disclosure of roles, responsibilities, and contact information of PMO officials.
Section 4(1)(c)	No publication of relevant facts regarding administrative decisions.
Section 12(4)	Chief Information Commissioner did not independently verify the proactive disclosures.

 

💬 Why It Matters

When India’s highest executive office refuses to comply with basic transparency norms, and when regulatory authorities like the CIC fail to enforce accountability, it raises deeply troubling questions:

• Is the RTI Act being hollowed out from within?
• Can democracy survive when citizens are denied even the right to ask?
• Has the CIC become a rubber stamp instead of a watchdog?

 

📢 A Call to the Informed Citizenry

Let this case be a warning and a call to action. Transparency is not a favour; it is a right.
And when institutions forget their duty, citizens must remind them—firmly, legally, and fearlessly.

I, Rajnish Ratnakar, will not stop. I will continue to pursue the truth, to expose the denials, and to strengthen the citizen’s right to know.

Because a democracy without accountability is not a democracy at all.

 

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form