When Transparency Fails: A Citizen's Battle Against Bureaucratic Evasion

From Labour Secretary to Shielding CIC: How India's Top Transparency Tribunal Dismantled a Citizen’s Appeal

A recent case before the Central Information Commission (CIC) has cast a glaring spotlight on the challenges citizens face when seeking transparency and accountability from public authorities. The case, CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/637762, heard on 20 May 2025, involved Appellant Shri Rajnish Ratnakar and the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), Regional Office Patna. Presiding over the appeal was Shri Heeralal Samariya, the Chief Information Commissioner, notably a former Labour Secretary of the Government of India.

What Triggered the Case?

The saga began with Rajnish Ratnakar's precise RTI application filed on 3 April 2024. His core questions revolved around an email he sent on 13 January 2024, demanding EPF benefits for honorary workers and nationwide action under Section 7A of the EPF Act. The key questions in the RTI were:

• Has the Labour Secretary received the email?
• Has she issued directives to CPFC to extend EPF benefits to honorary workers?
• Have EPFO offices initiated compliance under Section 7A?

Crucially, the original email was annexed to the RTI, making it central, evidentiary, and constitutionally serious.

A Chain of Transfers Without Accountability

What followed was a frustrating display of bureaucratic evasion. The MoLE's nodal CPIO transferred the RTI to EPFO HQ, sidestepping custodial responsibility. EPFO HQ then deflected it further to EPFO RO Patna, which provided a reply.

What Went Wrong Procedurally:

The process was riddled with errors:

• There was no verification of email receipt at MoLE, despite it being classified information under Section 2(f).
• No tracing of action or inaction by the Secretary occurred, despite a legal and ethical duty to respond.
• EPFO Patna failed to apply Section 6(3) transfer protocol.
• A delay of 10 days in the CPIO’s reply violated the statutory deadline.

What Did the CIC Do — or Avoid?

Under the watch of the former Labour Secretary, the Central Information Commission's handling of the appeal was deeply concerning:

• It failed to examine whether the email was received.
• It did not mention the names/designations of the CPIO and FAA.
• It ignored the annexed evidence and the appellant's intricate legal submissions.
• It did not record or calculate RTI response and appeal timelines.
• It avoided invoking Section 20 (penalty) despite delay and misdirection.
• It skipped Section 25(5) recommendations for systemic reform.
• It chose not to name custodial lapses, transfer violations, or transparency breaches.

Instead of addressing these critical issues, the CIC declared the queries as “not related to public authority” — effectively burying the issue under procedural disposal.

Why This Violates RTI Jurisprudence

This decision reflects a "denial by dispersion" , where truth is scattered across departments, and the final tribunal chooses not to assemble it. The CIC's omissions directly contravened several RTI provisions:

• Section 2(f): Ignored email as valid “information”.
• Section 6(3): No proper transfer of RTI to MoLE or EPFO HQ.
• Section 5(3): No assistance to trace systemic records.
• Section 20: No show-cause notice for delay or denial.
• Section 25(5): No recommendations for reform or disclosure.
• Section 4(1)(b)(ii): No documentation of officer duties or decision basis.

The Conflict of Interest: From MoLE to CIC Chair

A significant ethical question arises from the fact that Shri Heeralal Samariya, who presided over the appeal, is a former Labour Secretary of India. The RTI directly challenged non-action by MoLE. Yet, the CIC:

• Did not recuse himself, nor disclose prior affiliation.
• Chose to shield his former department, rather than trace culpability.

This raises critical ethical questions of bias, proximity, and adjudicatory independence.

Recognition and Reform: Who Raised the Alarm?

This exposé is authored by Shri Rajnish Ratnakar, founder of RTI and Public Grievance Warriors of India. His RTI application, appeals, and systematic legal critique lay bare:

• The evasion of responsibility across government tiers,
• The collapse of transparency inside the CIC itself, and
• The urgent need for doctrinal reform.