Results 1 to 3 of 3
Thread: Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act
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 ?
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
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
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.
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
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?