A Public Information Officer has received an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. After gathering the required information, he finds that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were not totally correct. Some other employees were also a party to these decisions. Disclosure of the information may lead towards disciplinary action against him and his other colleagues including probable punishment. Non-disclosure of information or partial disclosure of information may result in less or no punishment. The Public Information Officer is an honest and conscientious person but the particular decision regarding which an application under the RTI Act was lodged was a wrong decision. The officer comes to you for your advice. Under the above conditions what will be your advice to the officer? Explain logically.

Facts and stakeholders

• An RTI application has been received; after gathering, the information relates to decisions the PIO himself took that were not totally correct.
• Other employees were also a party to those decisions.
• Full disclosure may bring disciplinary action and probable punishment for him and colleagues.
• Non-disclosure or partial disclosure may mean less or no punishment.
• He is honest and conscientious; the particular decision under RTI was wrong.
• He seeks advice; the public, the applicant, the department, and the colleagues are all in the scene.

Ethical and legal issues

• RTI is a statutory duty of disclosure unless a listed exemption applies. Fear of punishment is not Section 8.
• Partial disclosure that hides the inconvenient limb is a species of providing false or misleading information, which Section 20 is built to punish.
• Colleagues’ exposure is not a private loyalty that outranks the applicant’s right to the record.
• Kant: using the applicant as a means to save one’s service book.
• Integrity: the PIO’s honesty is now tested at the photocopier, not in his self-description.
• Natural justice for colleagues: disclosure of a true record is not the same as a public smear campaign or a false noting that dumps them.

Options

• Withhold the whole file, citing a fake exemption or “not available.”
• Partial disclosure: release praiseworthy pages, withhold the wrong decision, or blank names of colleagues.
• Delay until the applicant gives up; a quiet administrative murder of the right.
• Full disclosure of what the Act requires, with a covering note that the decision is under internal review.
• Full disclosure plus a suo motu admission to the competent authority, and cooperation with any inquiry, without coaching colleagues to lie.
• Ask the applicant to withdraw in exchange for a private correction — a new corruption of process.

Advice I would give

• Disclose as the RTI Act requires. Apply only genuine exemptions (privacy of a third party where truly attracted, fiduciary, etc.), with reasons, not as a blanket to save the office.
• Do not crop the wrong decision. The applicant asked for information pertaining to that decision; hiding it is the definition of the conflict.
• Do not invent a story that colleagues were the sole authors if the PIO signed or concurred; truth in the record includes shared authorship.
• Do not call a party meeting to align denials. Brief colleagues that the lawful path is the file as it is; they may add their own representation in the disciplinary forum, not in a forged RTI reply.
• Inform the First Appellate Authority and the Head of Office in writing that a possibly erroneous decision is being disclosed, and request a lawful review or stay of further harm if the decision is still operative.
• If personal information of unrelated third parties is mixed in, sever under the Act; do not use severance to delete one’s own error.
• Accept that punishment for the original wrong decision is a separate proceeding. Trying to beat that proceeding by starving RTI is a second misconduct, worse because it is committed by the custodian of transparency.
• As a conscientious officer, offer a factual affidavit of what happened, including his own share, which often mitigates in inquiry more than a detected cover-up.
• If pressured by seniors to suppress, record a speaking noting and, if needed, use vigilance or CIC — not a leak of unrelated private data.

Logical rank-order

• The citizen’s right under RTI outranks the official family’s comfort.
• The original wrong is already done; the only ethical remaining choice is not to compound it.
• Honesty that survives only when costless was never honesty.