A Public Information Officer has received an application under RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who were party to these decisions. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result into lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice. The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options: (i) The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer and seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior. (ii) The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO. (iii) The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information. (iv) The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice. Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

Facts

A PIO must respond to an RTI application that would expose his own (and colleagues') wrong decision, likely triggering disciplinary action. Honest, full disclosure risks his career; suppression, part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure protects him but violates the RTI Act.

Stakeholders

• The PIO and colleagues (career, reputation).
• The RTI applicant and the citizen's right to information.
• The department and the integrity of public administration.
• The wider public interest in transparency and accountability.

Ethical issues

A conflict of interest (the PIO would be judge in his own cause), the statutory duty of honesty and transparency under the RTI Act, accountability for a wrong decision, and the temptation to place self-interest above public duty.

Evaluation of options

• (i) Refer to a superior and act strictly on the advice: lawful and reduces personal bias, but the superior may not be neutral, and blindly following advice one disagrees with abdicates responsibility.
• (ii) Proceed on leave or transfer the application: avoids the conflict of interest but is evasive, delays a citizen's right and shirks accountability.
• (iii) Camouflaged or partial disclosure to protect his career: ethically and legally indefensible — dishonesty, suppression of information and misuse of office, and liable to penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
• (iv) Consult colleagues who are party to the decision: deepens the conflict of interest and risks collusion, since they are interested parties.

Recommended course of action

Because of the conflict of interest, the PIO must not decide his own case. The correct path is to disclose the information fully and truthfully as the RTI Act requires, while formally recusing himself and placing the matter before a superior or the appellate authority for objective handling. He should honestly accept responsibility for the wrong decision — an honest mistake, owned up to, invites far less moral and disciplinary censure than a cover-up. Transparency upholds the law, the citizen's right and his own integrity, and sets an example of accountability, whereas suppression would compound one error with a graver ethical and legal violation.