Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • 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

State should behave like a ‘responsible litigant’ with the citizen.

Recommended Posts


State should behave like a ‘responsible litigant’ with the citizen.





File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000386


State has a responsibility towards the citizen, who should not treated as opposite party or rival. It is not proper to take every case in appeal up to apex court mechanically, simply because there is a provision in Civil Procedure Code. It has to introspect and answer whether it was behaving like a ‘responsible litigant’ with the citizen? As pointed out by Hon’ble Justice TS Thakur, Judge of Supreme Court, there is no mechanism to scrutinize the cases which need to be contested and which not to be. It is rightly said that that large number of cases against state “cannot be a good sign of good governance”. Commission would like to quote Justice Thakur who said: “Every case filed irrespective of merits is burdening the judiciary, costing the exchequer and increasing the pendency of case. This is deficit in governance. Governance is not just army, police, road, building etc but governance also is adjudicating rights of a citizen which is legitimately due to him.” The respondent authority has a duty to tell the people whether they have any mechanism to examine each case before contesting a citizen or appealing the judgment given in favour of citizen. Do they have such mechanism?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

OF LATE the PIOs/CPIOs are taking a stand that why should e supply the information to these fellows (RTI Applicants) (great percentage of PIOs) and either be silent or give half hearted replies or refusing under some clause of Sec8 force the applicant to go for FA there also this will repeat and finally you are driven to SIC/CIC in 2nd appeal and at that stage he will do you a favour by telling the SIC/CIC that he will give the infrormation asked for now making you to wait for TWO YEARS for a reply.This is my personal expwerience

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.

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
      State commission cracks down on information officers who delay providing information to citizens
      The state information commissioner recently levied a fine of Rs9,750, to be recovered from the salary of SP Sangane, divisional joint registrar, co-operative housing societies, for delaying information sought under the RTI.
      Tarun Ghia, a Mumbai resident, had demanded copies of the orders of appointment of chartered accountants and certified auditors to audit co-operative housing societies, on January 23, 2006. Ghia was provided the required information on April 20 — 84 days after the application. Under the Act, only 30 days to provide information is permissible and another 15 days to intimate the applicant about photocopying charges. But even after counting those days, there was still a delay of 39 days.
      Ghia then filed a complaint and, in the hearing before the state information commissioner, Sangane cited administrative reasons such as the ongoing assembly session, large number of appeals, urgent notices and the chief officer going on sick leave as causes of delay. State Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, however, said the reasons did not justify a 39-day delay.
      In another case, Gaurang Vora sought information regarding MMRDA projects that required trees to be chopped or replanted, through the RTI Act. The information was delayed by 29 days. SR Nandargikar, superintendent engineer and engineering and information officer, MMRDA was fined Rs7,250 (Rs 250 per day of delay). “I’m quite satisfied with the action that the commissioner has taken but the need of the hour is 10 chief information commissioners in the state,” Vora said.
      Suresh Joshi, chief information commissioner, Maharashtra, said: “We look at the gravity of the case and then impose a fine or order departmental proceedings. If it’s a tehsildar in Gadchiroli, who has very little administrative exposure, then we are lenient and may issue a warning but if it’s a corporator in Pune or Mumbai, who is well aware of administrative responsibilities, we take stricter action.”
    • jswami16
      By jswami16
      Hi everybody,
      I am a new member & my name is swami. Can I get the answers for the following queries:
      1. Does the citizen of India can have access to the personal information (revenue details) of other citizen?
      2. If the Citizen cannot access, then who has the right to access it?
      3. Under what conditions govt authorities can access to personal information of the citizens of India?
      It would be of great help if the above issues are explained with reference to a case law.
      Please enlighten me on the above issues.
      Thanks & Regards,
  • Create New...

Important Information

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