By Atul Patankar
As reported by Jeeva at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 18 September 2009
CHENNAI: V Santhanam, a social worker from Chromepet, is upset with the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC). And with good reason -the Commission, which passes orders everyday directing various public authorities to reply to queries raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, has failed to respond to Santhanam's RTI application even though seven months have passed since he filed it.
Santhanam had asked TNSIC to give him the number of appeals received and disposed of in the last three years, the number of public information officers penalised by it for refusing to provide information within the stipulated time of 30 days, their names and details and whether they paid the fine amount.
As there was no reply for his application dated February 13, 2009, Santhanam chose to file a fresh application last month. This too evinced no reply.
Santhanam is not the only applicant unhappy with TNSIC's silence.
Source: RTI applicants sore over info commission?s silence - Chennai - City - NEWS - The Times of India
The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Report in land grab case need not be disclosed to public: Information panel
Report in land grab case need not be disclosed to public: Information panel
CHENNAI: The report submitted by the Tiruvallur Collector in the Justice P.D. Dinakaran land grab case need not be disclosed to the public, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has ruled in a recent order.
Ruling against petitioner V. Madhav, who had sought the documents under the Right to Information Act, the Commission accepted the Collector's affidavit that access need not be given to the documents under Sections 8(1)© and 8(1)(h) of the Act.
Section 8(1)© provides exemption to “information, the disclosure of which will cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State legislature.” Section 8(1)(h) provides exemption to “information, which will impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.”
Mr. Madhav, however, argued that both the Collector and the Commission had not explained where breach of privilege would be committed or how the process of investigation would be impeded.
He pointed out that a 2007 Delhi High Court order had specifically stated that “the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information will hamper the investigation process.”
The order had added further that “such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such provisions will become a haven for dodging demands for information.”
Mr. Madhav added a media entity had obtained possession of the documents and it was only reasonable that the documents be also made available to the general public.