Blog Archives

No RTI to Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) till Supreme Court Decides

No RTI to Indian Council of ArbitrationThe Indian Council of Arbitration established in 1965 is the apex arbitral organisation for settling commercial disputes says NO to RTI citing that Department of Commerce (DOC) neither provides any financial assistance to ICA nor has any administrative control over it; ICA is being treated as an independent autonomous body and therefore, it is outside the purview of ‘public authority’ as defined in RTI Act.

CIC has also allowed to keep ICA out of RTI citing that Electronics & Computers Software Export Promotion Council, Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts and Apparel Export Promotion Council is subjudice before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to take a view whether ICA is ‘public authority’ u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. Read more ›




UIDAI settles out of CIC for withdrawal of Appeal

UIDAI settles out of CICIn response to his appeal before the Commission, the UIDAI, Hyderabad called up the Applicant and provided an e-Adhaar copy  to his satisfaction. The CIC also let go UIDAI by treating appeal as withdrawn. Earlier, Dr. Ravhuvir Prasad Mathur, has filed the appeal before the Commission against the respondent Unique Identification Authority (UIDAI), Hyderabad for not providing satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application.

The appellant vide his letter dated 13.12.2013 informed the Commission that in response to his appeal before the Commission, the CPIO, UIDAI, Hyderabad has called him and provided EIN and an e-Adhaar copy for Garima Mathur to his satisfaction and he may be allowed to withdraw his appeal. In view of above submissions of the appellant the instant appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by CIC.

Read more ›




Allegation of corruption ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence under RTI

Allegation of corruption ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence under RTI. Also allegation of corruption’ does not mean mere conjectures and surmises. For the Information commission to frame a prima facie view about corrupt or malpractices being involved in any given case reasonably or to frame a view on the violation of human rights under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act, it should be supported by cogent and sound evidence.

As per the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act 2005

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.” Read more ›