User Tag List

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Posts
    4,359
    Name:
    Sunil Ahya
    Blog Entries
    11
    Total Downloaded
    15.5 KB
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    37.96%
    Monthly Activity
    354.9%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    1
    Best Answers
    1
    Good Answers
    5

    Default Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act


    Are there any recent decisions by Information Commissions / Court Judgments on the interpretation of section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act ?


    "It is elementary that what is binding on the court in a subsequent case is not the conclusion arrived at in a previous decision" "A case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow logically from it. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes" - Supreme Court in AIR 1982 SC 149 (at p.231).

  2. #2
    Posts
    586
    Name:
    Manoj B. Patel
    Blog Entries
    21
    Total Downloaded
    49.0 KB
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    17.47%
    Monthly Activity
    1019.34%
    Problems Posted
    5
    Problems Solved
    3
    Best Answers
    3
    Good Answers
    4

    Default Re: Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act


    Inappropriate information sought can be rejected. Madan Lal Ming v Dinesh Singh CIC/AT/2006/105.

    The Commission held that the information sought should be clearly information within the scope of section 4(1)(d) of the RTI act 2005.Applicant's intention was to use the information to build a case which he could file in a court of law

  3. #3
    Posts
    1,543
    Blog Entries
    40
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    60.48%
    Monthly Activity
    40.57%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act


    Hon'ble member-Inappropriate information sought can be rejected [Sec. 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act]
    Judgment: In the case of Madan Lal Mirg v. Dinesh Singh (F.No.CIC/AT/2006/00105,
    dated 30/6/06), the applicant had asked for certain
    information from the records of the public authority and obtained all the information so
    asked.
    The applicant again filed an RTI application with this public authority and asked a
    number of questions and opinions so that he could use them to build a case which he
    could file in a court of law.
    CIC dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the information sought by the appellant
    does not qualify for disclosure as per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act,
    and it is not the
    intention of this provision to provide an applicant with opinions or suggestions, which can
    be used to build case in a court of law, for an applicant.
    The Commission held that the information sought should be clearly information within
    the scope of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
    Provisions involved:
    Section 4(1)(d) - Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasijudicial decisions to affected persons.Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly provided [Sec. 8(1) of the
    RTI Act]
    Case: In the case of Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision
    No.CIC/OK/A/00163, dated 7/7/2006), the applicant had applied for information
    relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a student in the university hospital due
    to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him.
    The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the university saying
    that the information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g)
    of the RTI Act, without providing any further reasons as to how the information sought
    could not be provided under the RTI Act.
    Judgment: The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI
    Act to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these
    provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial
    of legitimate information.
    The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the particular application.

    The Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for
    information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract
    penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act. In the first judgement ,information commission took the recourse of section of 4(1)(d) for not providing information to information seeker. In the second judgement ,information commission took the recourse of section of 4(1)(d) for proving malafide denial of legitimate information sought by information seeker. Which information commissioner is justified in its stand or both are justified if both are justified then explain in detail?



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android

Newsletter Subscription