Jump to content
MANOJ B. PATEL

Pro active disclosure

Recommended Posts

MANOJ B. PATEL

If section 4 is effectively implemented and entire data, organizational information, schemes polices, benefits and list of beneficiaries are made available, the people will get really empowered and is definitely a right step towards the democratic and transparent form of governance.

However, it is sad, there is no statutory consequence or penalty if the duty under section 4 is not performed or breached. This appears to be a major lacuna in the RTI Act 2005 and requires immediate attention of the law makers to empower this law to be more citizen friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.T.RATHAVA

Respected sir

if government concern authority followed Proactive disclosure under RTI and citizen charter act and public redressal rules more than 30% rti applications less in its workload.

 

kya kare S.babu aadat se majboor hatey hei.

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



      Decision No. 294/IC(A)/2006
      F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00336
      Dated, the 21st Sep., 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, 25, Strand Road, 723, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001.
      Name of the Public Authority : The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhavan, Indraprastha marg, P.B. No.7100, New Delhi-110002. DECISION
       
      Facts:
      The appellant had sought certain information which are furnished by the member companies and are available with the respondent in fiduciary capacity.
      The CPIO has denied the information on the ground that the information sought has no relation with public action or interest. The CPIO has also mentioned that the appellant has filed a complaint against the companies whose information are being sought. He has therefore contended that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. He has thus soughtexemption u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act. Commission’s Decision:
      Information sought relate to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which do not fall under public domain. As such, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information sought, which is exempt u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download segment


       

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      The Apex court has observed that "disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of the government must be the rule, and secrecy, an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands "

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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