Jump to content

Question

speedoheck

1. Can a government department refuse to accept two or more my identifying certificates on the grounds that "one identification has the middle name just initialized and the other has the middle name in the expanded form"? [could be a legal question actually]. This has happened even when the father's name(second level of identification) and date of birth(third level of identification) matches in both. This is specially in relation to the PAN card department about not accepting my certificates as valid to make changes in PAN card.

 

2. How to frame RTI and to whom to frame RTI for this? A lot of us have middle names. Sometimes we initialize it, sometimes we expand it. Does just using the initials(in name or middle name) make us unidentifiable even when other layers of identification are provided? For instance, our former President was called S.Radhakrishnan and sometimes he expanded and sometimes he didn't. But that didn't make him ineligible for consideration of both names.

 

3. Can I file RTI with Supreme Court asking for documents which show that just because a person's middle name(or name) is initialized doesn't make him ambiguous or unidentifiable, provided other layers of identification are provided.

 

4. This can be a landmark RTI if we have a reply from, say, Supreme Court and can be used to quote in future RTIs. I'm sure people who have legal background have the answer already. Please share your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
RAVEENA_O

Your right is only to seek information from public authorities. You may get the information only if it is held by and under the control of the public authorities. Don't ask question(s) to SC.

 

You have to satisfy Income Tax authorities that initialized name and its expanded forms pertains to one and same person. You can file a sworn affidavit in that regard. The process of allotment of PAN is outsourced. Agency's staff are not able to take decision, in such situation. Meet the ITO concerned and give a representation along with relevant document(s) and affidavit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
speedoheck

But Raveenaji, in countries like the US omitting the middle name or just initializing it does not affect a person's identity because there are other layers of identity like date of birth, address etc. Many people in the US have similar first name and last name like for example John Smith. In many government forms filling middle name is optional.

 

My question is if India is different, what records or law or judgment about identity makes it different. For instance your advice about affidavit is given in which law or judgment or decree.

 

And SC is not exempt from RTI right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
speedoheck

My rtitinda.org community usually responds quickly. What happened now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O
But Raveenaji, in countries like the US omitting the middle name or just initializing it does not affect a person's identity because there are other layers of identity like date of birth, address etc. Many people in the US have similar first name and last name like for example John Smith. In many government forms filling middle name is optional.

 

You are in India. Even in India, middle names or expanded forms are not necessary in many states. Then, they don't approach the authorites for change in PAN by expanding the initials.

 

Initially the PAN had been issued on your request as per details submitted by you. If you want to change that, you must convince the authorites.

 

My question is if India is different, what records or law or judgment about identity makes it different. For instance your advice about affidavit is given in which law or judgment or decree.

 

We have suggested a solution for coming out of a difficult situation expressed by you. It's upto you to accept or reject the suggestion. You may consult a lawyer for getting legal advice. You need to file a civil suit for getting a judgment and decree if you feel that there is reason to do so.

 

And SC is not exempt from RTI right?

 

Definitely, it is a public authority constituted under the Constitution. You can also assume that the Hon'ble Judges are there just to expand your name's initials for the purpose of PAN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
speedoheck

Raveenaji, these outbursts of anger doesn't suit a RTI Moderator, although I appreciate that you spend a lot of time answering multiple questions.

 

"they don't approach the authorites for change in PAN by expanding the initials.". I haven't approached for change in name. They are not accepting the alternative names in different ID cards.

"You need to file a civil suit for getting a judgment and decree if you feel that there is reason to do so."

There is no need to file suit if a judgment/decree is already on record.

 

"You can also assume that the Hon'ble Judges are there just to expand your name's initials for the purpose of PAN!"

It is not only for the purpose of PAN, it can be applied to any other situation. I am not asking the Hon'ble Judges to expand my name's initials. I'm asking the PIO for information.

I'm sorry Raveenaji, your last sentence is completely deviating from the point and is rude.

Moderators must also moderate themselves!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
G.R.Vidyaranya

Kindly stick to the topic of RTI on this forum. If you feel that SC is the custodian of said info, pls file RTI and try your luck. If the issue is legal pls seek legal opinion, which this forum cannot provide. Do not take comments as personal. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
digal

@speedoheck

 

1. Earlier you had submitted RTI to PAN card department to show your submitted documents, showing your father's name.

 

As that proved 'their mistake', you got your father's Name changing fee(100/-) back.

 

2. You were interested to file RTI regarding 'PAN Card changes' on behalf of your relative, who is not an Indian citizen.

 

3. The PAN card department refuses your request for a change in PAN Card as certificates have different names. You are interested to solve the problem through RTI.

 

 

Going through your asked help, your achievements & Hon'ble members' suggestions, it seems you have been adequately answered to find remedies for several changes (including your relative).

 

As you are a learned member & as you have achieved success in RTI, you better understand that, the Authorities can act as per Rules.

 

If the Rules say, it can be accepted with two different names(though same person), then the officer has to comply with. I don't think such Rule would exist. If you feel so, file RTI to the Dept. to know the Rules showing the same.

 

Instead of blaming Hon'ble moderators or other persons, in my view, kindly engage your time & energy to find solution through other means (like an affidavit to evince that both names are same or as advised by a lawyer)

 

 

 

Keep cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
G.R.Vidyaranya

I had applied for a change of address in my PAN card and in the application form submitted by me there was spelling mistake in Father's Middle name and hence the application was rejected. Since I did not know what was the spelling I had mentioned in my previoous application (more than 25 years ago), a wise guy told me to write back to IT PAN Dept. stating that "kindly issue the new card as per name mentioned in your records" and that did the trick. I got a new card.

 

Moral of the story: Always preserve copy of each and every application in your record file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
speedoheck

Here is another success story of getting a reply through email RTI application with eIPO. I will quote my RTI first and then the PIO of Supreme Court reply. I am posting this for the knowledge of everyone who reads this.

My RTI:

Under RTI Act 2005, I wish to know the following:

 

1. A person can have different forms of his name: when the middle name is expanded, or when the middle name is omitted or when the middle name is just initialized. The last two forms are not accepted by some government departments, especially if one identifying certificate has the expanded form. This is so even when other layers of identification like date of birth, father's name, address, etc have been provided.

 

Please provide certified copy of documents showing judgments/decrees/statutes/protocol where it is mentioned that a person is only identifiable if his full name is expanded, that initializing or omitting the middle name is wrong, even when other identifiers like father's name, date of birth, address etc match.

 

2. In the USA, it is optional to mention a person's middle name. Sometimes it is omitted and sometimes just initialized even in government documents. But other identifiers are used like date of birth, address, etc. Many people have the same first and last names.e.g. John Smith. Please give certified copy of documents showing judgments/decrees/statutes/protocol which show that it is different in India.

 

3. Please give certified copy of documents showing judgments/decrees/statutes/protocol where it is mentioned that to prove that the different forms of a one's name belong to the same person, one has to file an affidavit.

 

4. Please give certified copy of documents showing when was this email first read, when the reply was sent, and what was happening in the intervening period.

 

Please send a scanned copy of reply by email also.

 

Here is the PIO of Supreme Court reply:

Point No.1 to 4: It is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the CPIO, Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to interpret the law, judgments/orders of this Hon'ble Court or of any other Court, to give explanation, opine, comment or advise on matters. Your request is not covered under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and cannot be acceded to.

 

Further, all the judgments of this Hon'ble Court are reported in Law Journals and judgments/orders are also available on the Supreme Court website viz. Supreme Court of India and can be accessed/searched/downloaded therefrom.

 

Further, there is a provision to obtain certified copies of the judicial document/judgments/orders of this Hon'ble Court by making an application to the Registrar (Copying), Supreme Court of India on payment of prescribed fee and charges.

For further details, you may, if so advised, refer to Order XII, Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 is available on the Supreme Court website viz http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.n and can be accessed/downloaded therefrom.

 

I think this was nice to know and will help other RTI applicants.

 

I have filed First Appeal, through email, saying that what was asked in the RTI were concrete judgments and not assumptions, conclusions or inference as said by PIO.

I have also mentioned that obtaining records of judgments through RTI rules(cost of documents) shall overrule other expenses, as mentioned by PIO as mentioned in many CIC judgments.

I have asked the info to be provided free since now it is beyond 40 days.

 

Any thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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