Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Shrawan

      Bookmark your favourites   03/14/2018

      Bookmarks is an easy and convenient way to save and bookmark content that you want to find later: Want to save a long topic for later reading? Don't want to lose your spot in an interesting topic? Need to mark something for moderator review?   Curious about other people's favorite bookmarks?   Bookmarks at RTI INDIA saves you the hassle of rummaging through multiple pages, searching, and navigating to find that one post you wanted to later review. With one click, you can save any post as a bookmark.  It offers a convenient way to compile, store, and organize your most favorite posts from around the community into your own set of bookmarks. This is especially helpful for those helping others, so they can refer those important posts, blog, page, thread and post it in the new thread they are replying. FEATURES Bookmarks offers the following features: Public Bookmarks - Public bookmarks are viewable by other members and guests on a tab on the member's profile page.   Private Bookmarks - Private bookmarks are viewed only by yourself.  This is perfect for the posts you secretly love to return to!   Unlimited Bookmarks - Let your users save as many bookmarks as they want!   Notifications - The content creator can get a notification when somebody bookmarks his content Bookmarks works with the following content items: Topic Posts Blog Entries Blog Comments Download Files Download Comments Gallery Images Gallery Comments Gallery Albums New Articles FAST & FRIENDLY Bookmarks is designed to be super fast and user-friendly.  You can add or remove the bookmark, the bookmark is instantly removed without reloading the page - giving an instant and seamless transition to you. Some Screenshots
  • 0

What is the meaning of the term incitement of violence in RTI?


I read in the section 8 the word about 'incitement of violence'. What does that exactly mean in terms of RTI?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Incitement of Violence is now understood in criminal Jurisprudence as such degree of incitement which when applied, result in actual committal of violence by the victim of the incitement.


Such is not the case with incitement of violence referred to here. This has to be understood as only expression, which is capable of exciting even a simple person to resort to violence by oral or written communications.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

thanks Sir.

There are terms in RTI act sometime which need more explanation ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dear Mr.Kushal,

May I request you to give the specific reference of sub section of Section 8 which says "incitement of violence " ? I could locate the terms "incitement of an offence " only in Section 8(a)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

  • Files

  • Blog Entries

  • Similar Content

    • By Shrawan


      Dated, the 20th September, 2006.


      Appellant : Shri Anil K. Sahore, 601, Kailash Tower, Near SM Shetty School, Powai, Mumbai – 400 072.
      Respondent : Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, PIO, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi-110001.
      Shri K.R. Nautiyal, Appellate Authority, Dy. Inspector General & Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi-110001. Shri Anil K. Sahore has filed this appeal against the order dated 9.4.2006 of the Appellate Authority, the D.I.G. & Director(Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters and the order dated 10.2.2006 of the PIO, Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters.
      The facts of the case are that Shri Anil K Sahore filed his RTI request dated 12.1.2006 for a copy of the Coast Guard Headquarters letter dated 15.3.2005 addressed to the Chairman, Indian Register of Shipping, Mumbai. This letter had originated from, as stated by the appellant, the office of Vigilance Officer, Shri P.S.Rathore of the Coast Guard Headquarters. The PIO rejected the request through his communication dated 10.2.2006, on grounds of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
      Through his communication dated 8.3.2006, the appellant challenged this order before the first Appellate Authority (AA), who, in his order dated 9.4.2006, upheld the contention of the PIO.
      The parties were called for a hearing today (i.e. 20.9.2006). The appellant was personally present and the respondents were represented by the Appellate Authority, Shri K.R. Nautiyal, D.I.G. & Director (Personnel) and the PIO, Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, PIO, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters.
      During hearing, it emerged that apart from the exemptions quoted for non-disclosure of the information by the PIO, there is another important aspect, which is the interest of the third party in this particular case. Section 7(7) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act enjoin that third party, if involved in a particular matter, must be heard before a decision on disclosure or non-disclosure of an information is taken. Apart from this, there is a need to examine the appellant’s case more carefully in the light of the security implications of such disclosure. It is noticed that these critical aspects of the information requested by the appellant were not examined.
      In overall consideration, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri K.R. Nautiyal, D.I.G. & Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters with direction to examine the appellant’s request for information de-novo. The appellant should also be given a hearing by the AA and the case should be decided not later than 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
      The appeal is disposed of with the above direction.

      (A.N. TIWARI)

    • By Shrawan

      Central Information Commission


      Decision No.303/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00416
      Dated, the 22nd September, 2006


      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Nitin M. Gokhale & Smt. Vaijayanti M. Gokhale, Flat No.12, Usha Moreshwar Apartment, V.V. Kunj Road, Warje Naka, Warge, Pune – 411 029.
      Name of the Public Authority: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,Telegaon-Chakan Road, Village Mahalunge Ingale, Chakan, Pune – 410 501

      The appellant had sought certain information about a third party. The CPIO denied to furnish the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act and contended that disclosure of the information has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
      The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      The Commission has obtained detailed comments from the CPIO on the appeal filed by the appellant. It has been mentioned that the information sought relate to the documents, which are very old. As per the company’s record policy,documents are preserved for a period of eight years only. Therefore, the documents asked for do not exist with the company.
      Since the documents asked for are not preserved as per the record maintenance policy, they cannot be furnished to the requester.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner

    • By Shrawan



      September 25, 2006
      Appeal No. 115 /ICPB/2006

      In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.


      Appellant: Shri. H.K. Bansal
      Public authority: Ministry of Communication & IT, Shri H.C. Jayal, Joint Secretary & CPIO, Shri. Yaswant S. Bhave, Spl. Secretary & Appellate Authority.
      The appellant in this matter has sought information from the CPIO relating to the regularization in the post of Supdt. Engineer (Civil) and adhoc promotion to the grade of CE©. Having not satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred his first appeal dated 26.5.06 to the appellate authority which supplied all the information vide its letter dated 10.8.2006. Having still not satisfied with the information supplied, the appellant has filed his second appeal before the Commission on 11.7.06. Comments were called for wherein it is stated that in the information furnished by the CPIO and the appellate authority, all information sought for by the appellant has been furnished except the minutes of the meeting held in UPSC. In the rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the minutes of the meeting in UPSC cannot be withheld.
      I have perused the application and also the information furnished by CPIO and the appellant authority. On receipt of CPIO’s reply, in his appeal, the appellant had elaborately dealt with the deficiency in the reply furnished by CPIO. The appellate authority has dealt with each and every point raised by the appellant and wherever there was a deficiency, correct information has been furnished to the appellant. The
      only information which was not furnished relates to the DPC minutes and connected files. . As far as the DPC minutes are concerned, in Shri Gopal Kumar V Army HQ ( Appeal No CIC/AT/A/2006/0009 dated 13/7/2006, a Division Bench of this Commission has held “Departmental Promotion committees prepare their minutes after examining ACRs of employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of the DPC and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to the disclosure of ACRs. Since ACRs themselves according to us are barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings should be similarly barred”. The same decision applies in the present case also and therefore, both the CPIO and the AA have rightly declined to disclose the documents connected with the DPC.
      Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner

    • By Shrawan

      Central Information Commission

      Decision No.307/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00621
      Dated, the 27th September, 2006

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. M.D.N. Panicker, D/81, Sector-18,Rourkela-3

      Name of the Public Authority: Rourkela Steel Plant, SAIL, Rourkela – 769011. DECISION
      The appellant is the General Secretary of a Trade Union called Rourkela Shramik Sangh functioning in Rourkela Steel Plant. He sought the following documents from the CPIO:
      “Copies of note-sheets leading to the issuance of circular No.PLRR-11(134) dated 4.4.2005 (Personnel Policy Circular No.869)regarding Coke subsidy;
      Copies of the note-sheet leading to issuance: of Circular No.PLRR-8(36) dated 4.4.2005 (Personnel Policy Circular No.870)regarding canteen expenses;
      Copies of the note-sheets leading to issuance of circular No.PLRR-8(20) dated 12.5.2006 (Personnel Policy Circular NO.898);
      Copies of the note-sheets leading to issuance of Ref.No.SAIL,RSP,IGH:45 dated 30.5.2006 by the Director (M&HS).”

      2. Being not satisfied by the information/documents supplied to him, the appellant filed his 1st appeal to the appellate authority, who upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      3. The Commission obtained detailed comments from the CPIO, in which he has stated that the appellant has asked for copies of the note sheets related to the different orders of the department, and that the information relate to third party i.e. employees information, which is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) &(e) of the Act. Commission’s Decision
      4. The appellant has asked for information in the capacity of the General Secretary of the Employees Association, which, as an organization, is barred u/s of the Act, since all citizens shall have the right to information.
      5. The appeal is therefore not maintainable.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner

    • By Shrawan

      Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a public authority cannot withheld an information merely on the ground that the matter is sub-judice.
      Even in regard to the matter where the prosecution is still continuing, the CPIO can provide the information subject to provisions of Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by applying the doctrine of severability.
    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
    • Total Members
    • Most Online
      02/21/2018 03:26 AM

    Newest Member
    Joined 03/23/2018 12:56 PM

Our Moderators

karira karira Super Moderator
ganpat1956 ganpat1956 Super Moderator
ambrish.p ambrish.p Moderators
Sunil Ahya Sunil Ahya Moderators
jps50 jps50 Moderators

About Us

RTI INDIA established in the year 2006, attracts a broad audience of citizens, experts, professionals and Government Officers interested in the latest development in the field of Right to Information. We also boast an active community focused on helping citizens to File RTI, First Appeal and Second Appeals. Our download section contains many sample RTI forms for everybody to use.

Social Links


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy