Blog Archives

Information Commissioner

No legal provision debars disclosure of information pertaining to an unauthorised construction

Central Information Commission agreed to the RTI applicants right to seek information in the case considering that no legal provision debars disclosure of information pertaining to an unauthorised construction, particularly one which is directly affecting the RTI Applicant.

The Commission stated that as the applicant is a stakeholder in the Society and affected by the unauthorised construction and illegal usage of the flat for running an industrial unit, therefore, is directly adversely impacted by such act of the owner of the premises. The East Delhi Municipal Corporation denied information invoking Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The commission stated that these provisions are not applicable since the information sought is neither personal in nature nor is information about unauthorised construction held in fiduciary capacity by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Read more ›




Can you still file Second Appeal if First Appellate Authority claimed you were satisfied?

rti-appealIf First Appellate Authority claims that applicant has expressed satisfaction with the information furnished before the appellate authority, does the Appellant is precluded from preferring a second appeal on the same RTI application.? The Central Information Commission rejected the claim and directed the FAA to again hear the applicant afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing.

The Commission relied on Section–102 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is extracted hereinafter:

102. On whom burden of proof lies.-The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.

Read more ›




Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them

rti-resolutionIn a recent decision, CIC has ruled that Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them. National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry (NJCS) which is an umbrella body of the unions of SAIL and RINL had made a self resolution that NJCS is a bipartite forum which comprise of workers and management representatives. The decisions taken in NJCS are only circulated in the form of Notes of Conclusions among the Members of NJCS only. The same are for internal use of members only and as such, cannot be shared under RTI.

NJCS is a bi-partite forum and as such information pertaining to NJCS cannot be provided under RTI Act…..

Even CIC had earlier decided that as 80 to 85% of the funds for this body come from SAIL Steel plants. Hence, this entity is held to be a public authority u/s 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. (decision of the Commission in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002516 in the matter of M D N Panicker vs SAIL). Thus clearly National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry as a public authority is under an obligation under the statute to provide such information to maintain transparency.

Public Authority can’t deny information

Another RTI application was denied by taking recourse to it’s resolution. However, CIC held that

The resolution taken by NJCS in its 247th meeting is not in conformity with the provisions of RTI Act. Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them unless it is exempted under Sec 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.

What are your views? The decision can be read here!