Why are they avoiding providing information? This pertains to how the budget is spent on the RTI portal. It also relates to the budget on the CPGRAM portal of the government of India.
There seems to be a lack of transparency regarding the allocation and expenditure of funds for these crucial platforms. Therefore, an RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency is essential. These platforms are designed to facilitate communication between the government and citizens.
This evasiveness raises questions about accountability and the effective use of taxpayer money.
Furthermore, understanding the budgetary details could shed light on the operational efficiency of these portals. It can also help assess their effectiveness in meeting the public’s needs. Determining if improvements are necessary for better governance is also crucial.

👤 Approach of Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

The question of “what is the approach” reveals the tension between the RTI Act’s spirit of transparency. On the other hand, CPIOs and FAAs often focus on the Act’s letter. Their approach is rooted in bureaucratic reality.
This complex dynamic not only affects the efficiency of information dissemination but also impacts the public’s trust in governmental institutions.
While the Act embodies a commitment to openness and accountability. Its implementation frequently falls short. Officials may prioritize procedural accuracy over genuine transparency.
Consequently, this creates a frustrating experience for citizens seeking information. They may encounter unnecessary hurdles and red tape in what should be a straightforward process. This widens the gap between the fundamental objectives of the RTI Act and the operational practices of its enforcers.

Based on your experience and common practices, the approach of Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) when facing requests for specific, detailed budget information can be summarized as follows:

---

🧐 The CPIO’s (First-Line) Approach: Denial Based on Record-Keeping

The CPIO’s main priority is to adhere to the legal definition of “information” and the statutory time limits. (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

1. The Primary Ground for Denial: “Not Maintained in Material Form”

• Legal Basis: Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information as any material in any form. This includes records and documents. Public authorities hold or control these. (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)
• The Approach: You asked for the budget for the RTI or CPGRAMS portals. The CPIO offered the standard bureaucratic defence. The system does not maintain the specific information you seek in a segregated format.They argue that they do not need to keep it that way.
  • Create Information: They do not have to compile or collate a new report.. They do not need to separate a portal’s cost from a larger IT budget head. This includes budgets like NIC’s general maintenance budget.
  • Offer Opinions/Assumptions: They will not provide an estimate. They will not specify what portion of the general budget the government spent on that specific portal.
• Your Case: Your CPIO response is a perfect example. It illustrates that “the PG Division does not maintain the information.” Various organisations, such as NIC, actively engage in this process. Additionally, they deploy various resources to handle functions beyond the CPGRAMS Portal.

2. The Use of Transfer (Section 6(3)) (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

• The Approach: CPIOs often transfer applications. This happened in your case from MeitY to DARPG. They do this when they believe that another public authority holds the information. While legal, this action often leads to delays. A “ping-pong” effect occurs, with each authority claims the other is the custodian of the complete information.

---

🏛️ The FAA’s (First Appeal) Approach: Upholding the Status Quo

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is an internal appeal mechanism. It is also an officer senior to the CPIO within the same public authority. (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

1. Focus on Administrative Integrity (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

• The Approach: The FAA often acts to protect the administrativeintegrity of the department’s record-keeping system. If the CPIO states that they “do not maintain” the information, the FAA often confirms this.This is especially true if the CPIO’s explanation is plausible.For example, different heads or departments may share costs.
• The Rationale: Upholding the CPIO’s decision prevents the department from having to perform complex, resource-intensive compilations. They say they lack the staff and budget for this work. The department argues that such actions would “disproportionately divert resources.” This common reason for denial appears in the search results.

2. Rare Interventions (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

• The FAA’s approach is generally to intervene only if the CPIO has:
  • Failed to respond within the stipulated time.
  • Cited a non-existent or incorrect exemption clause (e.g., citing Section 8(1)(j) for budget data).
  • Provided a demonstrably false answer that is easily traceable in an existing, readily available document.

---

🎯 The Central Information Commission (CIC) Approach: Leaning Towards Transparency

The Central Information Commission (CIC) is the final and highest adjudicating body. Its approach is often more citizen-centric. It focuses on the spirit of the Act.

1. Compiling Information (Conditional)

• The Approach: The CIC agrees that CPIOs generally do not need to create new records. However, in matters of high public interest, such as spending on key public services, the CIC may take action. It sometimes directs the CPIO to provide information. This applies when someone can easily compile or cull the information from existing records. The condition is that it should not lead to a “disproportionate diversion of resources.”
• A Key CIC Direction: The CIC often directs Public Authorities (via a ruling in a Second Appeal). They instruct them to improve their proactive disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. This is specifically regarding the “budget allocated to each of its agency.” It indicates the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures, and reports on disbursements made. (Source 1.7)

2. Penalizing Casual Denial

• The CIC’s approach is to strictly enforce the time limit. They impose penalties on CPIOs who deny information. This applies when CPIOs do not apply their mind or provide legally sound, reasoned exemptions. (RTI Appeal for Budget Transparency)

In summary, the CPIO/FAA approach prioritises administrative convenience and the strict letter of the law. Their position is often, “We don’t keep that file.” Your challenge now is to use the Second Appeal to push the CIC. Emphasise the high public interest involved. Highlight the systemic failure of Proactive Disclosure (Section 4). This failure contributes to a lack of accountability.

Would you like me to help you formulate the arguments for your Second Appeal to the CIC? We can focus on the lack of Proactive Disclosure.