CIC cracks whip on J&K’s SICOP, JMC, R&B, Transport, Revenue Deptts for flouting RTI Act
At a time when transparency and accountability are being projected as cornerstones of good governance, a series of orders by the Central Information Commission (CIC) has exposed serious lapses in the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act across several Government departments in Jammu and Kashmir.
From failure to furnish information within statutory timelines and disregard of appellate orders to unexplained absence from Commission hearings, officials in the Revenue Department, SICOP, Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC), Public Works Department (PWD) and Transport Department have come under the scanner, prompting the CIC to initiate show-cause proceedings, seek explanations and warn of penal action.
The findings emerging from separate cases point towards a troubling pattern of administrative indifference that has repeatedly forced citizens to approach the country’s highest transparency watchdog to secure information guaranteed under law.
One of the most serious observations came in a case relating to Tehsil RS Pura, where a citizen sought records concerning an alleged erroneous entry in revenue documents affecting inheritance rights over ancestral land.
The Commission found that neither the Public Information Officer nor the First Appellate Authority had discharged their responsibilities in accordance with the RTI Act. While the applicant had specifically sought records on the basis of which a particular name had been entered in revenue documents, the information was not supplied.
Recruitment in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya JNV Pulwama
The CIC observed that the Tehsildar failed to provide information even after expiry of the statutory period, failed to appropriately interpret the RTI application and also did not furnish records which he claimed were enclosed with his written submissions. Finding the conduct unacceptable, the Commission ordered issuance of a show-cause notice to the Tehsildar and directed him to explain why maximum penalty under the RTI Act should not be imposed.
The Commission also took adverse note of the fact that the First Appellate Authority, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, had failed to adjudicate the appeal, directing that a copy of the order be forwarded to the authority for ensuring future compliance with RTI provisions.
In another significant case involving land records and inheritance mutation in Anantnag district, the CIC found that information was furnished only after a delay of more than six months despite clear directions issued by the First Appellate Authority.
The Commission observed that the Tehsildar Shahabad failed to provide information within the stipulated timeframe, failed to comply with the FAA’s order and did not furnish any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay. Holding that the provisions of the RTI Act had been violated without reasonable cause, the Commission directed issuance of a show-cause notice asking why maximum penalty should not be imposed.
The Jammu and Kashmir Small Scale Industries Development Corporation (SICOP) also came under severe criticism. The case related to information sought regarding allotment and execution of steel truss work for construction of warehouse in Baramulla. The Commission noted that despite directions issued by the First Appellate Authority, the applicant was not supplied the information sought under the RTI Act.
Describing the omission as a deemed refusal to provide information, the CIC observed that non-compliance of the FAA’s order amounted to a gross violation of RTI provisions. The Commission further expressed serious concern over the absence of the concerned officer during the hearing and directed him to explain why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated.
The Jammu Municipal Corporation too found itself under the Commission’s scrutiny in a case relating to building permissions, construction approvals and alleged violations. While the CIC held that several queries involved third-party information and therefore did not strictly fall within the ambit of information as defined under the RTI Act, it nevertheless expressed dissatisfaction over the manner in which the application had been handled.
The Commission took exception to delays in dealing with the request and sought explanations from Senior Town Planner, Enforcement Officer and Nodal CPIO (RTI) for their conduct and absence during proceedings.
A separate case involving the Public Works Department centred around information sought regarding the educational qualifications, service records, property statements, vigilance clearances and other personal details of a senior engineer.
While the Commission upheld the denial of most information on the ground that such records constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, it pointed out certain deficiencies in the manner the application had initially been dealt with. The CIC also sought an explanation from the concerned officer for remaining absent during the hearing despite prior notice.
1520+ Posts: IOCL Recruitment 2026 , Apply Online
Similarly, in a case concerning transfer and posting details of employees of the Transport Department, the Commission found that the information sought had eventually been supplied and that directions of the First Appellate Authority had been complied with.
However, the CIC expressed displeasure over the unexplained absence of the Public Information Officer/Assistant Transport Commissioner during the hearing and directed submission of a written explanation, warning that further proceedings would follow in case of non-compliance.
The Commission’s observations in these cases indicate that despite a robust legal framework guaranteeing access to information, several Public Authorities continue to treat RTI obligations as a procedural burden rather than a statutory responsibility.