Blog Archives

Department not Officer should pay compensation to affected citizen – rules High Court

vicarious_liablity_rtiIn a significant decision of Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016, Calcutta high court has ruled that “It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty.”. The Department cannot claim that “responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers”.

The court further added that “In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen.” Read more ›




CIC imposed penalty over both PIO and RTI Applicant

child privacy under rti actIn an unprecedented decision, CIC imposed a penalty over RTI Applicant even though the RTI Act do not provide for the same. Central Information Commission while deciding the case recorded that “Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission record its contempt against RTI Applicant for misusing the RTI Act against the school child and imposed a penalty of Re. 10/­ which is to be paid to the Principal of the School”.

Commission,  also directed the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of Rs 1000 each be paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy.

The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Read more ›




Penalty only if applicant proves mala fide intent of PIO

applicant proves mala fide intent of PIOAlthough the information was not provided within the stipulated time, it cannot be said that the CPIO acted consciously and deliberately with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant and thus CIC refused to initiate penalty procedure under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

CIC instead has quoted High Court judgement for not initiating penalty procedure.

Penalty only if applicant proves mala fide intent of PIO

In WP(C) 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that “……This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public information
officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. Read more ›