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
karira

CIC gives up on Allahabad High Court RTI Rules !

Recommended Posts

karira

In a candid order, the CIC has said that it is helpless (just like citizens, applicants and appellants) since the Allahabad High Court is not changing its RTI Rules. These rules cause inordinate delays in the PIO providing information. The PIO of the Allahabad HC has seldom replied to a RTI application in 30 days.

 

As regards the delay on the part of the CPIO in replying to the Appellant,

we have noticed very often that the CPIO of the Allahabad High Court rarely

responds to any RTI request within the stipulated period of 30 days mainly

because of the elaborate procedure laid down under the Allahabad High Court

Right to Information Rules. The sanctity of the time limit fixed under the Right to

Information (RTI) Act is breached every such time when the CPIO fails to

respond within 30 days of receiving an RTI application. We cannot punish the

CPIO for this because it is not he who is responsible for the delay but the

procedure put in place by the High Court. In the past, on many occasions, we

had observed that the competent authority in the High Court must revisit this

arrangement and ensure that the timelines fixed in the Right to Information

(RTI) Act are strictly adhered to. It appears no one has taken any heed of that.

The citizens can only feel helpless because there is nothing they can do. The

CIC is also equally helpless because the Allahabad High Court procedure for

disclosure of information involves the vetting and approval of the information by

both a Committee of Judges and the Chief Justice of the High Court. Once

again, we hope that the situation would change and like all other public

authorities in India including the Supreme Court of India, the Allahabad High

Court would also follow the provisions of the law both in letter and spirit.

CIC helpless in face of Allahabad High Court RTI Rules.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

May only God help us!!!

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

    • 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