- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
By Priya De
Ahmedabad: An Right to Information (RTI) query has recently shed light on an amusing information about the Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani. The Gujarat CM and BJP leader has no official email address to his credit, as revealed in an RTI reply by the CMO’s office. The people who want to reach out to the state top leader have to reach out to his website cmogujarat.gov.in
The General Administration Department (GAD), overlooks day-to-day service matters of the bureaucracy and the chief minister’s office. As per an official reply under RTI by GAD's public information officer MB Chauvatiya, the department has claimed that CM Vijay Rupani does not have an ‘official’ email ID.
Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI
Reported in Gujarat Global News Network, Ahmedabad, 2008-06-11 15:58:39
In a significant decision the Gujarat Information Commission has
allowed access to annual property returns (APRs) of government
officers to any citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) act.
The ruling came after activist Harinesh Pandya sought details under
the RTI of property of IAS officer Rajiv Gupta. Pandya wanted to know
the details of Gupta's property since he assumed office. He had also
sought to know the source of income for acquiring the property and
whether any of property was sold. The Public Information Officer had
refused to disclose the details on the ground that the information was
available with them in "fiduciary relationship" and there was no
larger public interest warranting disclosure.
Pandya filed appeal before the GAD and the appellate authority too
upheld the PIO's decision. However the GIC noted that CIC's decisions
on property disclosure were to bring transparency. But it directed the
GAD to inform Gupta that the details of his property are being
disclosed and to hear him.
Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI
Here's the text of the GIC's landmark order
Decision / Order.
(1) The non-disclosure of Annual Property Returns of the
officers/employees to the citizens under the Right to Information Act,
2005 under section 8(1)(e) is untenable.
(2) However, having regard to the situation that, the said property returns
may contain some part of personal information, in the present matter,
the respondent No.1 should, within five days from the receipt of this
order give a written notice to the concerned officer whose information
has been sought, that under the directions of this Commission, he
intends to disclose the information and should invite the concerned
officer to make his submissions in writing or orally and the respondent
No.1 shall, in his decision, take into account his submissions. The
respondent No.1 should give his decision within forty days from the
receipt of this order.
(3) As regards information sought as point Nos. (2) & (5) of the appellant’s
application, the respondent No. 1 should provide partial information,
which even under the GAD (RTI Cell)’s Circular dated 14-11-2005 can
be disclosed. Regarding the information, which cannot be provided, as
the Commission has held that section 8(1)(e) would not be applicable,
if the respondent No.1 is of the opinion that any other provision in