The CPIO stretched High Court Stay and Supreme Court judgement to justify denial of answer sheet. There is considerable difference in the context in the case of denial of Examination Copies and that of the stay order (supra) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court . The stay was granted on the primary objection of the petitioner (Union of India) that the answer scripts ordered to be disclosed had been already weeded out as per relevant policy.
The commission recorded that “In the circumstances, Commission fails to appreciate the contention of the CPIO, as to how the said stay order is being stretched to justify denial of answer sheet in the present case.”
Similarly, the claim that Aditya Bandhopadhyay case applies for answer scripts of qualifying exams was unsubstantiated by Read more ›
There should be greater transparency and accountability in the process of Defence Procurement, in as much as the vendors should be apprised of the reason for withdrawal of proposals or rejection of proposals- CIC
During the hearing on 31/08/2017, the Commission stated that that there should be greater transparency and accountability in the process of Defence Procurement, in as much as the vendors should be apprised of the reason for withdrawal of proposals or rejection of proposals.
The earlier Appeal in this regard and the in the present case (S_C_Sharma_171292) reflected on the lack of any such mechanism in place which leaves the vendors aggrieved and wanting for information from all channels. Although, RTI Act allows for the exemption of Section 8 (1)(d) to deny the information, but as a common proposition, more and more disclosure should be encouraged in such cases to avoid casting aspersions on the procurement process. Read more ›