The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice.

Understanding the PIO’s Role and Responsibilities

The RTI Act, 2005, designates a PIO in each public authority. Section 5(1) outlines their core duties: receiving and registering applications, providing information, assisting applicants in formulating requests, and refusing information only under specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Act. The PIO is legally accountable for fulfilling these duties within a stipulated timeframe (usually 30 days). The PIO’s role is not merely procedural; it demands a commitment to transparency and citizen empowerment.

The Ethical Dilemma: Consultation vs. Abdication of Responsibility

Consulting colleagues isn’t inherently unethical. Seeking clarification or expertise can be beneficial. However, the statement implies a reliance on colleagues *who are party to the decision* being sought information about. This presents several ethical challenges:

• Conflict of Interest: Colleagues involved in the original decision may have a vested interest in concealing information or presenting it in a biased manner.
• Diffusion of Responsibility: The PIO risks abdicating their individual responsibility by deferring to collective opinion. This weakens accountability.
• Potential for Collusion: Consultation could become a pretext for colluding to deny information that should rightfully be disclosed.
• Undermining Transparency: The very purpose of the RTI Act – to promote transparency – is defeated when information is withheld or manipulated.

Legal Provisions and Relevant Case Law

While the RTI Act doesn’t explicitly prohibit consultation, it emphasizes the PIO’s individual responsibility. Section 7(1) states that the PIO shall “provide information… expeditiously.” Delaying a response by seeking extensive, potentially biased, advice could be construed as a violation of this provision.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has consistently emphasized the PIO’s duty to act independently. In several cases (e.g., Rajender Singh vs. CPIO, Delhi Transco Ltd., 2008), the CIC has penalized PIOs for relying on interpretations provided by their superiors that were contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. The CIC has also highlighted the importance of reasoned decision-making and providing clear justifications for refusing information.

Best Practices for PIOs

To navigate this ethical dilemma, PIOs should adopt the following best practices:

• Independent Assessment: The PIO should first independently assess the information request and determine whether it falls within the scope of the RTI Act.
• Consultation with Legal Experts: If legal interpretation is required, consult with the public authority’s legal counsel, not colleagues directly involved in the decision.
• Documented Rationale: Any consultation should be documented, along with the rationale for seeking advice and how it influenced the final decision.
• Transparency in Response: The PIO’s response should clearly state the reasons for providing or refusing information, citing relevant sections of the RTI Act.
• Proactive Disclosure: Public authorities should proactively disclose as much information as possible to minimize the need for individual RTI requests.

The Role of Ethical Frameworks

The PIO’s conduct should be guided by principles of integrity, impartiality, and accountability, as enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Central Civil Services. The Nolan Committee’s Seven Principles of Public Life (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership) provide a useful framework for ethical decision-making in this context.