New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has remanded an RTI appeal to the Ministry of Women and Child Development for fresh adjudication, directing its first appellate authority to provide a fair hearing to the applicant seeking information on the implementation of the law against workplace sexual harassment in public sector banks.
The applicant, Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, cited the Supreme Court's decision in the Aureliano Fernandes versus State of Goa case and claimed that banks had failed to constitute Internal Committees as required under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
He sought details of banks registered on the SHe-Box portal, annual returns submitted under the law, penalties imposed for non-compliance, and court cases involving aggrieved women. SHe-Box serves as the central government's online platform for registering and tracking complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.
The applicant contended that the information provided by the ministry was incomplete and that he had not been granted a hearing despite specifically requesting one in his first appeal. Conversely, the ministry maintained that it had supplied all information available with it, noting that the Department of Financial Services acts as the nodal department for the banking, financial services, and insurance sector, and advised the appellant to approach the public information officers of individual banks for specific details.
The ministry also submitted that its relevant division did not maintain consolidated data on annual returns, penalties, and litigation involving individual public sector banks in the specific format requested. In a recent order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh directed the ministry's First Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal after allowing both parties to present their cases and subsequently issue a reasoned order.
The Commission highlighted that while the ministry claimed the first appeal had been disposed of, a copy of that order was not placed on record. The panel stated that without the document, it was unable to verify the contents or ascertain whether the appellant's request for a personal hearing had been considered.
The CIC emphasized that the first appeal must be decided through a reasoned order that directly addresses the grounds raised by the applicant, while clarifying that it was not expressing a final opinion on the merits of the information sought or the adequacy of the ministry's initial response. Finally, the Commission instructed the Public Information Officer to submit a compliance report, noting that the applicant retains the right to file a second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act if dissatisfied with the upcoming decision.