Hyderabad: A serious violation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has been reported in the Institute of Preventive Medicine (IPM), Public Health Labs & Food (Health) Administration, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.
As per the reports the Institute of Preventive Medicine (IPM) in Hyderabad officials allegedly demanded ₹15,000 to provide information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 — a move transparency advocates say may undermine the spirit of the law.
RTI activist and President of Know Your Rights Society, S. Umesh Kumar, had filed an RTI application on 10 February 2026 requesting official records from the department.
However, in a reply dated 20 February 2026, the institute demanded a lump-sum payment of ₹15,000 to furnish the requested information.
Critically, the department’s response did not specify the number of pages involved, the per-page reproduction cost, or any detailed calculation to justify the unusually high amount.
Under RTI rules, public authorities are permitted to charge only nominal fees — typically ₹2 per page — strictly based on actual reproduction costs.
The department also cited reasons such as the application being framed in an “interrogative manner,” its alleged indirect connection to an ongoing court matter, and invoked fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
“When public institutions impose arbitrary financial barriers without transparency, it transforms a citizen’s legal right into an unaffordable privilege — striking at the very heart of democracy.”
Legal experts note that such blanket or unsubstantiated exemptions are often challenged and examined rigorously by information commissions.
Transparency advocates argue that arbitrary financial barriers could effectively deny citizens their statutory right to information.
Mr. Umesh Kumar has announced his intention to escalate the matter before the Telangana State Information Commission and other competent authorities, seeking corrective action and enforcement of lawful procedures.
The incident has reignited debate on the accountability of public institutions and the need to ensure that the RTI Act remains a powerful tool for transparency rather than being diluted by procedural obstacles.
OUR INVESTIGATION
This is an official RTI reply letter from the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs & Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, dated 20-02-2026, in response to an RTI application filed by Sri S. Umesh Kumar, President of Know Your Rights Society NGO.
Here is the clear explanation in simple terms:
1. Basic Details
- RTI Act: Right to Information Act, 2005
- Applicant: Sri S. Umesh Kumar
- RTI received on: 12-02-2026
- Reply issued on: 20-02-2026
- Office replying: Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad
- Officer replying: Law Secretary & APIO (Assistant Public Information Officer)
2. Point-wise reply explanation
A. Information linked to a court case – REFUSED
“Information sought is indirectly related to W.P. No. 10766 filed in 2023. Therefore providing the information is not feasible.”
What the officials mean:
- RTI is related to a pending High Court writ petition.
- Government is refusing to give information because the matter is under judicial consideration.
- This is a common ground used to avoid interference with court proceedings.
B. Questions asked were in interrogative form – REFUSED
“Information sought is interrogative manner. Therefore providing the information is not feasible.”
What Officials Mean:
- RTI law allows requesting documents or records, not asking questions like:
- Why did you do this?
- Explain the reason?
- RTI must ask for:
- Copies of files
- Reports
- Orders
- Documents
Not explanations or opinions.
C. Fiduciary relationship exemption – REFUSED under Section 8(1)(e)
Due to fiduciary relationship, information cannot be given.
Meaning:
- The department claims the information is confidential between employer and employee.
- Under RTI Section 8(1)(e), such confidential information can be legally withheld.
D. Department claims they never shared or published such information
“Department has never communicated the above information to any organization or uploaded in public domain.”
Meaning:
- They are saying:
- This information was never officially released.
- They suspect applicant obtained it unofficially.
- They are asking how the applicant got such documents.
Please note that this is a defensive reply.
E. Demand for Rs. 15,000 to provide copies of documents
This is the most important part. The officials are saying:
- RTI applicant must pay Rs. 15,000
- Payment method: Demand Draft (DD)
- In favor of:
Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad
Reason given:
- To make photocopies of all documents requested
They also state:
- If actual cost is less → balance will be refunded
- If more → additional payment will be asked
3. What this means practically
The Officials have done three things:
- Refused some information citing:
- Court case
- Interrogative questions
- Confidential relationship
- Questioned how applicant got certain information
- Asked Rs.15,000 advance for providing documents
This large amount usually means:
- Either many pages (thousands)
- Or they are discouraging the RTI applicant
Normal RTI photocopy charge is:
- Rs. 2 per page
So Rs. 15,000 means approx. 7,500 pages.
RTI Activists legal rights now (VERY IMPORTANT)
The applicant can file First Appeal under RTI Act Section 19(1) within 30 days if:
- Information wrongly denied
- Excessive fees charged
- Improper refusal
Appeal goes to:
First Appellate Authority
Institute of Preventive Medicine
Hyderabad
Strong legal points in Applicant’s favor
the applicant can challenge because:
- RTI cannot be rejected just because matter is in court (unless specifically restricted by court)
- Asking Rs.15,000 without page calculation breakdown is improper
- They must provide page count and calculation
- “Interrogative manner” is weak ground if documents were requested
What this letter actually is in summary (simple words)
This is a partial refusal + fee demand letter.
They are:
- Refusing some info
- Avoiding some questions
- Asking Rs.15,000 to provide remaining documents
ecommended next step (very important)
File: First Appeal within 30 days
Grounds:
- Improper denial
- Excessive fee without page count
- Misuse of fiduciary exemption
- Information is public record
