Think about the gravity situation, the most corrupted department income tax India has been kept out of the purview of RTI Act 2005. This department is causing huge loss to the public exchequer through the tax evasion on the large scale. To deviate the attention from its corruption, it issues the notices to the poor people of this country and this matter becomes the subject of discussion. Instead of taking action against the 200 Companies indulged in Tax evasion by misusing PAN It is issuing notice to the Anti Corruption Crusader.
⚖️ RTI, Transparency, and the Battle Against Corruption: A Commissioner’s Notice
On May 15, 2025, a significant step towards greater transparency and accountability in India’s tax administration was taken when the Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, issued a notice to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Director General of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi. This action stems from a Second Appeal (File Number CIC/DGITE/A/2024/601981) filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, highlighting the persistent challenges information seekers face when requesting details related to the functioning, alleged corruption, and human rights violations within the Income Tax Department.
The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, resident of Mirzapur, UP, has brought to the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) attention what he describes as “rampant corruption” and a deliberate effort by the department to “run away from providing information.”1 The core of the matter revolves around a four-point information request originally filed on November 7, 2023, and the subsequent appeals against the responses (or lack thereof) from various wings of the Income Tax Department.
The Scheduled Hearing and Case Details
The hearing for this crucial case has been formally scheduled for 11:35 AM on May 15, 2025, at the N.I.C. District Centre, Collectorate Complex, Mirzapur, allowing the appellant to present his case locally. The key parties involved are:
- Appellant: Yogi M P Singh
- Public Authority (Respondent): Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) New Delhi
- Original CPIO Noticed: The CPIO, Office of the Income Tax Officer (Inv.) (CRU), Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi.
This hearing is a direct consequence of the department’s handling of the original RTI request (Registration No. DGIND/R/T/23/00074) and the subsequent First Appeal, where the First Appellate Authority (FAA) order was issued on December 6, 2023.
Key Information Points Sought by the Appellant
The RTI application sought answers to four specific points, each touching upon critical procedural and substantive aspects of transparency and accountability in the Income Tax Department:
1. The Right to Reason in Communication
The appellant demanded the reasons for not mentioning the registration number of the RTI application in official communications. This is a vital administrative concern. In a sound administrative system, the right to reason ensures clarity, traceability, and accountability. Without a consistent file or registration number, tracking communication and ensuring prompt action becomes unnecessarily complex, which can be interpreted as a deliberate bureaucratic hurdle.
2. Official Guidelines on Registration Numbers
Following the first point, the appellant requested any guidelines, office memos, or circulars regarding the mandatory inclusion of the RTI registration number in communications. The existence or non-existence of such internal circulars would clarify whether the omission is a systemic policy failure or an isolated procedural lapse, thereby establishing accountability.
3. Withholding Information on Corruption and Human Rights Violations
This is arguably the most critical point. The appellant asserted that information concerning corruption and human rights violations are not excluded under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Despite this, the Intelligence and Criminal Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department is reportedly refusing to provide this information. The appellant seeks the reason for this refusal, challenging the department’s interpretation of the law.
The RTI Act’s Second Schedule lists organizations (primarily intelligence and security) that are generally exempt from providing information.2 However, the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act explicitly states that the exclusion does not apply to information concerning allegations of corruption and human rights violations. By invoking the Second Schedule to withhold such information, the department’s wings are allegedly attempting to bypass a core provision designed to ensure accountability even within sensitive bodies.
4. Justification for Withholding Corruption-Related Data
Finally, the appellant demanded to see the guidelines, office memos, or circulars that support the “illegal stand” of the intelligence and criminal investigation wing to withhold information regarding corruption. This directly challenges the legal basis of the department’s actions, forcing the CPIO to produce concrete, written justification for their denial, or face the consequences of non-compliance with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
The Integrity of the RTI Act and Accountability
This case epitomizes the ongoing tension between public transparency and bureaucratic secrecy. The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted to usher in an era of transparency, forcing public authorities to be accountable to the citizenry.3 When wings of critical departments, like the Income Tax Investigation Wing, allegedly invoke exceptions meant for national security (the Second Schedule) to shield themselves from disclosing information on corruption, it fundamentally undermines the Act’s purpose.
The Commissioner’s notice to the CPIO is not just a procedural step; it is a clear assertion of the CIC’s authority to enforce transparency. The onus is now on the Income Tax Department’s CPIO to attend the hearing, equipped with the complete file, and provide point-wise, legally sound justifications for the procedural and substantive denials. The outcome of CIC/DGITE/A/2024/601981 will undoubtedly serve as a crucial precedent, reinforcing either the culture of transparency intended by the RTI Act or the culture of impunity that continues to plague certain government wings.
The public authority is mandated to provide the requested information within the stipulated 30 days under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The failure to do so, combined with alleged attempts to misuse legal exceptions, underscores the importance of the scheduled hearing and the potential for the CIC to impose penalties and order mandatory disclosure of the corruption-related information.
Would you like me to elaborate on the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and the specific proviso concerning corruption and human rights violations?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.