Jump to content
  • 0
BiswasBiplaw

Judgement

Question

BiswasBiplaw

Hello

 

Please provide any judgement on 'burden of proof entirely on PA.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
MANOJ B. PATEL

Dear member, In a case of, State Bank of India v. Mohd. Shahjahan, AIR 2010 Del 2005 it was held that, " Burden of proof entirely is on Public Authority to show why information sought from it should not be disclosed". In this matter marks given in performance appraisal by superior officer of employee was information held by employer-Bank. Fiduciary relationship, if at all was between employer and employee. Exemption was from disclosure to third party and certainly not to employee himself. If intention of making an adverse entry was to enable employee to improve his performance, then that purpose was not served by keeping information from him. Information sought by employee concerning himself was not protected from exemption u/s 8(1)(e). Submission that disclosure of such information would jeopardize relation between employee and superior officer who recorded entry was misconceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Please go through Sec.20 Penalties--2nd Para which reads as under

"Provided that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be"

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

    • smbhappy
      By smbhappy
      As per Section 5(3), the proviso to section 6(1), section 7(4)  the designated authorities, INCLUDING INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS, are required to assist the information seeker. 
      The commission is।  is also required to provide this assistance to appellant as per Para 10 of its judgement in WP(C)-7295 OF 2017 is under a statutory obligation to provide all reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Even a layman or an illiterate person may seek information as he has the constitutional right under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India as well as under RTI ACT. This is a very formidable tool to deal with the defying information Commissions across the country.
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      W.P. (C) No. 7295 of 2017
      PARA 10. The provision of Section 6(1) specifically provides that the Public Information Officer has to render all possible assistance to the information seeker. The intention of the legislature is quite clear in this regard. Though in Section6, the word “Central Public Information Officer “or the “State Public Information Officer “has been used, however, the same is applicable to the appellate authorities also as it is a settled law that an appeal is the continuation of the original proceeding. Thus, the State Information Commission being the second appellate authority is under statutory obligation to provide all reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Even a lay man or an illiterate person may seek information as he has the constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a)of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory right under the Act, 2005 and if a person who seeks information under the Act, 2005is debarred from appearing in-person before the statutory authorities, the same will defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
      Debarring - Jharkahnd HC - Debarring information seeker illegal.pdf
    • 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.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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