Jump to content
kikirthi

Need clarification on the section 7(1) under the life and liberty

Recommended Posts

kikirthi

Dear all!,

Yesterday morning my friends house comes in the newly declared national highway, on 7.30 a.m city municipal council authority had with out public notice had demolished the compound, my protest went in vein, police had interviewed in the matter and they were able to demolish the compound, immediately i applied under the rti for the details under the section 7(1) accordingly they have to give the information within 48 hrs.

Kindly explain the section and details for the first appeal. Thanks, Vijai kirthi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

After 91 posts, you are asking for section on First appeal (sec.19) and still have a hope in RTI. My dear friend RTI is not a solution, it is a way to destination. Approach to Court with the help of a honest advocate and that is National High way in such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

Sir,

With due respects to your comment, i just put across the situation in which i applied and used rti as tool, my question was i need to know more on the life and liberty of the relevant section of the rti act.

As all know the pio i.e. AEE will not give the information i assume, my next move will abously to approach the FAA. Then, i need to learn more about the relevent sec. Of the act, for my further stand to approach SIC in Karnataka.

 

Very sorry for the very less informative query, my intention was not hurt your feelings, i always respect all members sentiments and the time you people devote for the community work. I respect you a lot sir!. Thanks, vijai kirthi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAVEENA_O

Vijay achieved many success through RTI. He is instrumental to help his whole villagers in getting right compensation for their land acquired with the help of RTI.

 

You may file First Appeal 48 hrs after filing RTI Application with PIO if no information is supplied or not satisfied with the decision of the PIO. You may specifically mention that the appeal is preferred for deemed denial under the Life or Liberty clause and pray to decide the appeal immediately.

 

The life or liberty provision can be applied in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life and liberty of a person and non-supply of information may either lead to death or grievous injury to concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and disclosure of the information may change that situation. If disclosure of information would obviate the danger, then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. When a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in all such cases, proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to life and liberty can be proven.

 

Also please go through the discussion on Life Or liberty in this thread:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/1584-right-life-liberty-clause.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Mr.Vijay,

We should always try for earliest remedy. I will be glad to hear your success story in this issue with RTI. Please do post developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

Hello!

 

Cheers!

Many thanks for the guidence and support given to me, that's why i seek support from this platform.

Definitely i will update the developments, yesterday there was public holiday for sankranthi, By and large this is to help for the community. Thanks, Vijai kirthi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

you have to wait for the decision/ indecision of the FAA and then only you can go for second appeal in my opinion as per the elaborative comments and also highlighting life and liberty clause by Raveena ji, your case will not come under this clause. as no life danger is involved.

you can also explore giving legal notice to the land aquisition officer for encroaching and demolishing your compund wall without notice/ consent/payment of comphensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

"NAMASTE"

Yes respected member, my case will come under liberty issue, giving notice to the land acquisition officer is the legal remedy, i'm searching in the rti route and to help other members who are in the same situation.

My requirement is to know when to apply for the second appeal, is there any time frame to reply from the FAA. Eager ti know the procedure. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAVEENA_O

Appellate Authority has normal time of 30 or 45 days to decide the FA, even in case involving Life or Liberty. Consequently, time limit for SA is also normal i.e. 90 days after FAA decision or 120 days after submission of FA in case of no reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.S.ANANDKUMAR

1. There is no wrong if a person who made 95 posts and still raises fundamental question or doubt.

 

2. Those who are in need, needs to be addressed and redressed. Yours is a serious issue. It is difficult to imagine such a nightmare. I express solidarity with your probably frightened family.

 

3. The best option on hand and an immediate remedy is to move the High Court under Writ jurisdiction. No notice, consent or compensation feasible at this stage. One has to immediately get a stay/injunction. Need to take pictures of damage to property and use them as documents for writ.

 

4. RTI application made using provisio under sub-section 1 of Section 7 and the first appeal constitute wonderful documents making out prima facie case of infringement of fundamental rights, an essential ground for an interim order of stay/injunction under writ jurisdiction.

 

5. You are right in invoking provisio under sub-section 1 of Section 7 for seeking info in 48 hours. The right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution includes right to shelter and right to livelihood. If one's house is bulldozed, it is understandable to any reasonable minded person that the life of inhabitants in that residential property is threatened as well. In your case both right to shelter and right to livelihood are threatened and therefore article 21 is infringed and hence a fit case for invoking provisio under sub-section 1 of Section 7.

 

6. To me you are going in right direction. But you need to go in adequate directions as well - prefer a writ immediately engaging an honest lawyer. You must find one first. Little time left, I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

The issue is Mr.Vijai is not an affected party but a good social worker and a good samaritan and has to depend on consent of affected party and can not take independent decision. I have got my own reservations on L&L clause as Mr.Vijai has filed RTI for some one else and not on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.S.ANANDKUMAR

Still the affected person can make use of that RTI documents done by vijay for his/her writ. The deemed refusal constitutes prima facie case of arbitrariness and lack of fair play by the concerned Department. The department that has to object such RTI Application should have at least objected. It is callousness of the authorities to go on rampage on private residential premises without notice and also keep silent to RTI. Therefore, the writ petitioner, the affected person, can still use the RTI documents done by vijay as evidence for his/her writ. May be the affected person is either illiterate or ill informed on RTI. There is no such bar for writ, which is the immediate recourse for remedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Mr.Vijay knows all this better than all others. But as informed, co-operation of affected party is a must. Unfortunately most citizens of old generation do not like clashes with authorities and always proceeding in pleading them for mercy. This is the very problem that knowing well that we can handle a case properly at the end of the issue, appellants withdraw just from a phone call from any Govt. Authority, that makes all efforts till then a wasteful exercise, remember personal relations also matters in these issues. This is not to specific to Mr.Vijay case as I do not know the particular case and I am speaking of general tendency why some cases are not going till logical ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

"PRAISE THE LORD" i have got the support from all the members, respect you a lot, i will move with the second appeal as per ravena ji's advice, it is now sure i have to wait for the n normal 120 days this will be difficult for me, anyway this issue will help other community members also, my sole intention is to help my friend and to learn from this issue, thanks for the kind support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. Kikirthi sir,

 

it is now sure i have to wait for the n normal 120 days this will be difficult for me,

 

I invite your attention to Learned Ms. Raveena Madam post at #10 which I reproduce below:

 

Consequently, time limit for SA is also normal i.e. 90 days after FAA decision or 120 days after submission of FA in case of no reply.

 

The 120 days is upper limit and you do not have to wait for 120 days but only 30/45 days. Kindly see the difference between can do TO Till do (30/45 days to 90/120 days).

 

And to tell you the time tested method of undersigned in which I filed applications under life or liberty seeking information within 48 hours and after 48 hours on non receipt of information filed First appeal and after 48 hours of first appeal filed second appeal.

And believe me I got the famous order of jail inmates information to be put on web-site from SIC, Haryana with three 2 months of filing RTI Application under life or liberty clause. The information sought was of jail inmates who had completed half of their maximum possible sentence under the section they have been charged. Mind you, this information was about jail inmates in Haryana and touch wood none of them was undersigned relative or friend. This information was strictly third party.

 

And the caveat is that above method is not as per rules which learned madam has rightfully explained to you. So, sometimes, this way also things happen. You may try your luck with no guarantee of results.

 

thanks for your time Sir,

 

harinder dhingra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

Thank you mr. Harinder, well you have shared the experience, it is like a citation to me and the raveena madam ji' s suggestion is always worth remembering, she helps me in my critical time, i always salute the blog. HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY to all fellow members. Thank you very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr kikirthi sir,

Thank you and wishes on our Republic day.

May God gives you healthy life so that you keep working for commoners like undersigned.

 

Hd

 

 

Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kikirthi

"NAMASTE" to all, sorry for the misquoting of the wishes,

HAPPY REPUBLIC DAY TO ALL, thanks a lot for the encouraging and inspiration message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

We come across such instances, and atleast you have decency and courtesy to realise and amend - that shows your earnestness. Thank you and all the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. Kikirthi Sir,

 

"NAMASTE" to all, sorry for the misquoting of the wishes,

HAPPY REPUBLIC DAY TO ALL, thanks a lot for the encouraging and inspiration message.

 

Do keep us posted about developments Sir,

 

hd

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
       
      Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00274 dated 31/5/’06
      Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19



      Appellant: Ms. Vishaish Uppal
      Respondent: Shri Kamal Dayani, CPIO. PMO Facts:
       
      Ms. Vishaish Uppal of Gulmohar Park applied to Shri Kamal Dayani, CPIO,
      Prime Minister’s Office on 22.11.2005 seeking to inspect files, papers etc. relating to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.
       
      She subsequently received a copy of a letter from Shri Kamal Dayani, CPIO indicating that the case had been transferred to the Dep’t. of Personnel & Training – Director Shri Hari Kumar. In response Shri Hari Kumar, Director in the Dep’t. of Personnel & Training invited Ms. Vishaish Uppal to inspect the records.
       
      However, on 13.1.06 Ms. Vishaish Uppal reverted to CPIO Sh. Kamal Dayani in PMO stating that she had been shown only one file and informed by PIO Sh. Hari Kumar that files pertaining to the entire selection process are with PMO and not with DoPT.
       
      She, therefore, asked that she may be allowed to inspect the relevant files. In response Shri Kamal Dayani held that it was not possible to allow inspection of the relevant records in PMO on the basis of which Ms. Vishaish Uppal made complaint to this Office, which has been dealt with, vide No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00027 and decision announced on 28.7.06.
       
      As mentioned in the decision on that file response to complaint notice had also been received from PMO dated 22.2.06. Appellate Authority Sh. Jawed Usmani, Jt. Secy. in the PM’s Office, dismissed the appeal made to the Appellate Authority on 22.2.06. The Appellate Authority had held that the papers being classified confidential and no case having been made out for making any exception under sec. 8(2) of the Act, Ms. Vishaish Uppal could not be allowed to inspect the documents.
       
      This Commission on 4.9.06 heard the matter. Ms. Vishaish Uppal had earlier
      intimated inability to attend. Her authorized representative was Sh. Shekhar Singh. Shri Kamal Dayani, CPIO, PMO and Sh. Jawed Usmani, Appellate Authority, PMO represented the respondent’s office. Shri Shekhar Singh argued that the CPIO had held information to be exempt from disclosure u/s 8(j) of the Act, which Appellate Authority Sh. Jawed Usmani had rightly found to be invalid and legally unsustainable.
       
      The Appellate Authority, however, refused to disclose the information on the ground that the papers in the files relating to the selection of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners have been given the security classification “Confidential” under the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994 read with the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and according to the said Manual, such documents should be addressed to and seen only by those persons who have a direct concern with the subject matter contained therein.
       
      The Appellate Authority therefore stated that the Appellant cannot be allowed to inspect said file/document, as these documents are classified “Confidential”
       
      The appellant, on the other hand submitted that it was not open to the
      Appellate Authority to refuse disclosure on a completely new clause of the law on RTI. He, therefore, pleaded that the information be disclosed and CPIO Shri Kamal Dayani be suitably penalized for misinforming the appellant that the DoPT held the information, while it was in fact held in the Prime Minister’s Office.
       
      The appellant also submitted that the denial of information by the Appellate Authority on new grounds was unjustifiable.
       
      Shri Jawed Usmani, Appellate Authority, on the other hand argued that it is
      open to the second Appellate Authority only to consider the decision made in appeal, since the decision of the CPIO was now closed having already been set aside by the Appellate Authority.
      DECISION NOTICE
       
      “Appeal” is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the transference of a case from an inferior to a higher Court or tribunal in the hope of reversing or modifying the decision of the former. In the Law Dictionary by Bouvier an appeal is defined as the removal of a case from a Court of inferior jurisdiction to one of superior jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining a review and re-trial. In the Law Dictionary by Sweet, the term “appeal” is defined as a proceeding taken to rectify an erroneous decision of a
      Court by submitting the question to a higher Court or Court of Appeal. It is a settled law that an appeal proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding. A decision by an appellate authority after issue of a notice and after a full hearing, in presence of both the parties, replaces the judgment of the lower court/ authority. The decision of the appellate authority is on merit and as such, it can vary, modify or substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the inferior authority. In appropriate cases, it can quash or set-aside the decision of the inferior authority and can pass its own decision, which may be altogether different from that of the original
      decision. An Appellate Authority may re-examine the matter and take fresh evidence, if required, or if considered necessary.
       
      In view of the legal position as stated above, the first Appellate Authority was justified in setting aside the order of the CPIO. The first Appellate Authority was well with in its ambit while taking up a new ground and to deny the information u/s 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
       
      On the same analogy, this Commission is perfectly justified in looking into and considering, not only what the first Appellate Authority decided but also what was decided by the CPIO. The submission of the first Appellate Authority that this Commission should only consider the decision of the
      first Appellate Authority and should not look into or consider the order of the CPIO, is without any merit and as such, cannot be accepted.
       
      The Appellate Authority has held that the matter has been classified
      “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. We find that it is, therefore, for the public authority, in this case PMO, to decide on access to information if public interest for disclosures out weighs harm to the protected interests. In the present case, as explained by the Appellate Authority during hearing, he has issued his decision on the basis of the directions of the public authority.
       
      The appellate Authority has held that the matter has been classified
      “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. However, in view of the provisions of the Section 22 of the Act “The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act” , the provisions of Official Secrets Act stands over-ridden.
       
      Section 8(2) enables the public authority to disclose information notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any of the exemptions permissible under Section 8(1), if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Sec. 8(2) is, therefore, not a ground distinct and separate from what has been specified explicitly under Section 8(1) of the Act for withholding information by the public authority.
       
      The Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot withhold this information either on the ground that the information is classified as “confidential” under the Official Secrets Act or under Section 8(2) alone. However, Sec 22 as described above only overrides anything inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 stands neither rescinded nor abrogated. While a public authority may only withhold such information as could be brought within any of the clauses of Section 8(1), it is open to that authority to classify any of these items of information as “Confidential”, thus limiting the discretion of any other authority in respect to these.
       
      In this particular case denial of information is under the orders of the Public
      Authority and it is open to the Public Authority to deny the information provided such denial can be justified under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Prime Minister’s Office will, therefore, re-examine the matter in view of the observations made above within fifteen days of the date of issue of the Decision Notice and it may disclose the information to the appellant, unless of course, the disclosure of the information can be denied or withheld under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority shall take an appropriate reasoned decision.
       
      This Commission is also required to decide as to whether the Public Information Officer had without any reasonable cause knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the appellant. In such cases, the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently is on the CPIO. CPIO Sh Kamal Dayani may, therefore, show that the information provided by him to the appellant in his letter of 22.11.05 was given with reasonable cause or without knowledge that the information so provided was misleading. The response to this Notice may be received from CPIO Shri Kamal Dayani within 15 working days from the date of issue of this order either in writing or by personal appearance failing which he will be rendered liable for imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of this Act.
       
      Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
       

      (Wajahat Habibullah)
      Chief Information Commissioner
      22.9.2006
      Download the Decision from Download Segment.



    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      File notings under RTI after debate with section of society: Wajahat Habibullah
       
      Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said if the government decides to bring the bill to keep file notings outside the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act in the winter session, it will only be after debate with all sections of the society.
       
      "The civil society and the government are the decision makers on the Act. The Central Information Commission job is only to implement the Act, ' Habibullah said speaking at an interactive session on Right to Information Amendment Bill, 2006 organised by the NGO CUTS International.
       
       
       
      He said that all government departments have been directed to make a comprehensive compliance report of Section 4 of the Act dealing with maintaining data and information catalogue of information related to the department and submit it to CIC. The report will be submitted to the Parliament in the forthcoming winter session.
       
      Arvind Kejriwal, CEO of Parivartan and 2006 Magsaysay Award winner, said that the amendments do not pertain to file notings only as has been projected in the media. "If the amendments come through, the government will be able to keep the entire country out of the decision-making process. This is because the amendments provide that the departments will not give information on any issue till such time the matter is completed," Kejriwal said.
       
      Another important lacuna, he said, was that even after the decision was made, the entire information would not be provided and only file notings related to social and development work will be available. "So, if a citizen wants to know the status of his ration card or passport he would not get any information because this did not pertain to any social or developmental work," Kejriwal said.
       
      Also, all matters related to personnel will be out of the purview of RTI.
      Any information related to examinations process will also not be shown, he said.
       
      Pradeep S Mehta, secretary general of CUTS International, urged CIC to take up the role of advocacy given the extremely low public awareness on the usage of the act. [sourse: Business Standerd Aricle published dated 15th Sept 2006]

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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