- 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
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.
New Delhi, Dec 20 : With loads of queries coming in everyday, the Army headquarters here is planning to set up a separate Right To Information (RTI) Cell to function under the Public Information Directorate here.
The cell to be headed by a Brigadier-ranking officer along with a Colonel and two Lieutenant Colonels and clerical staff will only look into queries received under the Act. Out of the four officers functioning in the cell, one would be from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Army, to look into the legalities of queries received.
The cell is likely to come up in three to four months time.
With approximately 600 queries received a month, after the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into effect last year, the number of queries being posted to the Indian Army is on the increase.
Officers are being preferred from the 'A' branch of any establishment of the Indian Army, but staff appointments are being held up citing shortage of officers in the Indian Army. The army's 'A' branch deals with pays and allowances and other administrative matters pertaining to serving and ex-servicemen.
The Right to Information Act has opened the door to people seeking information ranging from commercial information with vendor details to defence deals, acquisitions and procurements.
Traditionally shy of asking for information about their personal matters, the officers and men are now inclined to asking questions. The bulk of the queries from officers are mainly about postings, promotions, progress in disciplinary cases and policy matters. Sixty percent of the queries are said to be from ex-servicemen, while five percent are from serving officers and men, and the remaining from civilians.
Multifarious queries are being posed by officers of ranks ranging from Lieutenant Colonels to Major Generals. Non-commissioned ranks too have been filing queries mainly pertaining to pay and allowance with the Pubic Information Directorate.
The queries are required to be addressed directly to the Additional Director General of Public Information with a fee of Rupees 10. The queries are then sent to the appropriate agency. The timeframe for the query to be answered is 30 days, but sometimes it takes longer if it has to go through many agencies. The query which is answered in a written hard copy can sometimes prove to be a little expensive as the information seeker is asked for an additional amount if the answer is to be accompanied with photo-copies of documents supporting the answer.
The present Chief of Army Staff, General J J Singh, kicked up a storm earlier this year by seeking exemption from the Act citing national security interest as the chief reason. But the government did not agree with him.
Security agencies like the BSF, Assam Rifles and the CRPF are amongst others under the Ministry of Home that are exempt from the many provisions of the Act, and are only required to dispense information about corruption and Human Rights violation falling under Schedule II of Section 24 of the Act.
NDTV Message Board