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
  • 0
sngupta

Whether case pending in court may be used as ground not to provide information.

Question

sngupta

http://jaipur.sancharnet.in/aaocomptrjp/Asst Manger PR 001.jpg

I want comments of forum friends on the issue as in case the douments is not available in court and if there is not direction of court we may be denied for information on the ground that there is a case in judiciary and information seeker is not a party in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
colnrkurup

This issue is given in Section 8(b) of the act viz., "Not withstanding anything contained in this Act. there shall be no obligation to give any cityzen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempot of court". This aspect has been repeatedly clarified in various judgements of the SIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
abhijeet

Please give some example of judgments/clarification in this regard for our future effective use of RTI Act--Abhijeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

sngupta,

 

1. Reply of PIO:

 

a) In case a application is rejected, the PIO must indicate in his reply

as to under which subsection(s) of Section 8 or 9 is he

rejecting the application.

b) Merely quoting the number of the relevant subsection(s) of the RTI Act

or quoting the relevant subsection "ad-verbatim" is not enough.

The PIO must indicate as to how that particular subsection is applicable

in the present case.

 

In support of above, I quote from CIC decision:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_07072006_3.pdf

 

The Commission found that the PIO has not given the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case. This only shows the casual approach of the public authority to deal with a request under the RTI Act. The Commission is unable to appreciate this lackadaisical attitude.

 

In the instant case, niether a) nor b) have been done.

This will be the FIRST ground for appeal.

==============

2. The PIO has not informed you in his reply as to within what time frame

you can appeal to the appellate authority, whose name/designation/

address have been correctly given by him.

 

This is SECOND ground for appeal.

==============

3. Sub-judice matters:

 

The Section 8(1)(b) is very clear:

 

b.information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

 

Nowhere in the act it has been mentioned that information relating to matters which are "sub-judice" cannot be given. Only in cases where the information is expressly forbidden to be published by the court or which may constitute contempt of court can be denied.

 

In your case, the PIO has not informed you (with documentary evidence), if the information you have asked for has been forbidden to be published by the court or will constitute contempt of court.

 

In support of the above, I quote from the CIC decision:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_20042007_06.pdf

 

" Sec. 7(8) of the Act states clearly that where a request

has been rejected under sub section (i) the CPIO shall communicate to the

person making the request the reasons for such rejection. Without citing any

clause of the Act, simply making a bold statement that the matter is sub-judice

and will amount to contempt of Court and, therefore, cannot be disclosed is not

adequate reason for rejection. In this case there is no clause of the Act which

exempts a matter simply because it is sub-judice. The sub sections of Sec. 8

which could be cited would be Sec. 8(1)(b) or 8(1)(h). In the former it is only

information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of

law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court which

would have a bearing on this case. However, it has not been indicated that there

have been any orders of the tribunal not to disclose any such information as

sought by appellant, or that the disclosure of which information would impede the

process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, necessary

for exemption u/s 8(1) (h), none of which can be invoked in the present case."

 

This will be the THIRD ground for appeal.

 

colnrkurup,

 

Whenever any PIO seeks the refuge under some "exemption clause" in the RTI Act, please consider it against the touchstone argument of whether the said clause is "restrictive" or "expansive".

Most of the clauses in Section 8 and 9 are "expansive" in nature and not "restrictive" due to the language and wording that has been used in the RTI Act 2005. (I do not know whether the drafters of the Act did this by accident or by design....but it is in the citizens favour !)

 

I quote from the CIC decision:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30082006_1.pdf

 

That the proviso is not restrictive but expands the scope of access to

information is borne by sub-Section 2 of Section 8 of the Act which makes it

abundantly clear that a public authority may allow access to information, if

public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests

notwithstanding the Officials Secrets Act or any of the exemptions

mentioned with sub-section 8(1). That clearly shows that the Act gives

paramountcy to the public interest and the exemptions do not constitute a

bar to providing information. If it were the intention that no aspect of

matters sub-judice can be considered under the Act, this would have been

expressly incorporated in clause (b) of sub-Section 1 of Section 8 alongwith

other matters prescribed in this clause.

 

Sub-Judice matters

 

Here is one more decision :

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_18092006_15.pdf

 

A perusal of the averments of the appellant and the respondents makes it clear that

there has been a serious error by the respondents in assuming that information in respect

of sub-judice matters need not be disclosed. The RTI Act provides no exemption from

disclosure requirement for sub-judice matters. The only exemption in sub-judice matter

is regarding what has been expressly forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal

and what may constitute contempt of Court: Section 8(1)(b). The matter in the present

appeal does not attract this exemption. Presence of a different provision in the

Cantonment Act about supply of documents in sub-judice matters to a requester have had

no bearing on the disclosure requirement under the RTI Act. Seen purely from the

stand-point of the RTI Act, the right of the appellant to access the information requested

by him is unimpeachable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sngupta

Karira,

You provided a lot which is enough to present the case. Thanks a lot. You please suggest me whether I have to file appeal or it is better me ask the orders of court under which you refused to provide the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

sngupta,

 

Please file a First Appeal stating ALL the three grounds for appeal as pointed out in post # 4 in this thread.

The PIO should know and learn how to give proper replies under the RTI Act.

This way you will be of benefit to others who apply to the same PIO for information.

  • Like 1

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

    • crusader
      By crusader
      I want to know that I have got information from Nagar nigam, Can I use it as an evidence in the court of law? What are the provisions related to that?
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       
       

      Decision No.292/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00588


       

      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


       
       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sharabh Dubey, 11/7 Civil Lines, Kanpur –208 001. (U.P.)
      Name of the Public Authority: The British India Corporation Limited, 14/136 Civil Lines, P.B. 77, Kanpur-208 001.
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The appellant is an employee of the respondent. He was transferred to another Unit of the company. The office order was challenged by him in the Court, which adjudicated on the matter. Subsequently, he has filed a few more petitions on service related matters in the Court. In this backdrop, he has sought documents relating to the legal opinion obtained by the respondent, file notings by the senior officials on the issue of transfer, letters/correspondence with other officials, etc.
      The CPIO has denied the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (g) of the Act.
      The case was heard on 12.9.06. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO and the appellate authority were present. In the course of hearing, the CPIO showed a copy of the petition filed by the appellant in the Court, whic hcontained almost all the documents asked for by him. The CPIO contended that the documents asked for by the appellant relate to the various petitions filed by him in the Court. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of the documents might adversely affect the disputed cases. Hence, the relevant documents are treated as confidential.
       
      Commission’s Decision:
       

      There is a dispute between the appellant and the company on service matters, including transfer of the appellant to another unit. The matter is pending before the Court for adjudication. There is every possibility that the appellant would get opportunity for his effective defense. The information sought is in the interest of the seeker. And, as such, there is no overriding public interest, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, for disclosure of the information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.
       

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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