As an officer in the Right to Information (RTI) division of the Defence Ministry, your primary responsibility is to respond to RTI queries by furnishing relevant details. Most of these RTI applications pertain to tender information and procurement contracts. However, occasionally, applications concerning sensitive matters arise, requiring you to seek legal advice and obtain approval from your senior before responding. Recently, an RTI application was received that involved sensitive departmental initiatives. Following protocol, you sought legal advice, and the legal officer cleared the response. However, your senior did not approve the reply and instructed you to be opaque in your response. Respecting the chain of command, you adhered to the senior's directive and provided a vague and non-informative reply. Undeterred by the initial response, the applicant resubmitted the application, demonstrating persistence. Once again, you followed the senior's instructions and kept the response deliberately vague. This cycle continued, with the applicant becoming increasingly relentless. One day, the entire email trail related to this RTI case got leaked and found its way to the media. It was revealed that the persistent applicant was an RTI activist, dedicated to ensuring transparency and accountability within government departments. The media coverage brought significant public attention and scrutiny to the Defence Ministry's handling of RTI requests, particularly those concerning sensitive information. In the aftermath of the media exposure, your senior officer instructed you to take responsibility for the opaque responses. You were left questioning your actions and decisions, pondering where you might have gone wrong.

Answered by 1 topper