New Delhi | Seeking written explanation from the Home Ministry CPIO over its denial to provide a copy of its response -- to the Kerala government's renaming proposal -- to an applicant, the CIC said the ministry's reliance on an RTI exemption was "erroneous or misplaced".

Earlier this year, the Union Cabinet approved the Kerala government's proposal to rename the state as "Keralam". The proposal now requires parliamentary approval before the change can take effect.

The RTI applicant had sought copies of the Kerala Assembly's resolutions passed in August 2023 and June 2024 regarding the proposed renaming of the state, besides a copy of any reply given by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) with respect to the August 2023 resolution.

According to the order, the appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) after not receiving any response to the RTI application.

During the hearing, the MHA central public information officer (CPIO) submitted that a reply to the RTI application had been provided on December 16, 2024 by invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Upon being asked to justify the exemption, the ministry submitted that the records pertained to correspondence between the MHA and the concerned state government and that the subject matter had not attained finality.

It was also submitted that the record was treated as a "confidential/secret record".

Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the requests for copies of the August 2023 and June 2024 resolutions appeared to pertain to the state government concerned.

It noted that the appellant had referred to documents partially available on the website of the state assembly concerned and appeared not to have filed the request with the "concerned public authority".

However, with regard to the applicant's request for a copy of any reply given by the MHA on the August 2023 resolution, the Commission held that the denial under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act was "erroneous or misplaced".

Referring to the exemption claimed by the ministry, the CIC said that "clearly, the facts of the instant matter do not indicate a fiduciary relationship" between the respondent and the state government in respect of the information sought.

It further observed that "the CPIO was unable to justify the invocation of the same as required in terms of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act during the hearing".

In view of these observations, Goyal directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant in respect of Point 2 of the RTI application, relating to the MHA's response to the Kerala government, within two weeks.

The CIC also took exception to the delay in responding to the RTI application, observing that the CPIO had caused a deemed refusal by failing to provide a reply within the stipulated time and that the belated reply had "seemingly evaded furnishing a cogent reply" under the provisions of the RTI Act.

It directed the CPIO to submit a written explanation, along with supporting documents, on why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act.