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

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/22/2006 in Posts

  1. 8 points
    The High Court of Karnataka in one case has directed First Appeallate Authoirty to dispose the Appeal filed by the Appellant in spite of the representation by the applicant. Applicant , had approahed the High Court for direction in the nature of Mandamus to dispose the Appeal filed by the appellant. High Court allowed the same petition. judgement is attached to this post. WP82886-12-06-08-2012.pdf
  2. 7 points
    Several times - both on this forum and also offline, I have suggested that an appellant can file a first appeal for each and every response (or no response) of the PIO. This is because of the wordings of Sec 19(1). Many have disagreed. Attached is an order of the FAA of the CIC (Central Information Commission) stating that an appellant can file multiple first appeals. Also note that the FAA has hauled up the CPIO of the CIC: Full order is attached to this post. CIC FAA order More than one first appeal.pdf
  3. 7 points
    Vide decision No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000695, 1199, 1369 & 1413 dated 01-11-2012, CIC has decided as under: "ii) in regard to the letter written by the MP questioning the suitability of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, we are of the view that this letter should be disclosed. Section 11 makes it very clear that a third party will have to be consulted before disclosure of any information only if the third party concerned had clearly claimed confidentiality at the time of providing the information to the public authority. In the present case, the MP concerned, while writing the said letter to the Prime Minister, should have clearly expressed his intention that the contents of the letter be treated as confidential. The letter written by the MP, which we examined during the hearing, does not show anywhere that the MP had treated the contents of that letter to be confidential. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the CPIO to consult him because the letter written by him was not covered under section 11. It is immaterial that, later, when consulted the MP concerned claimed that he intended the letter to be kept confidential. This is a clear afterthought and goes beyond the protection available to third party in section 11. In the light of this, we direct the CPIO to provide a copy of this letter to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order." [emphasis added] Copy of order is attached herewith. It would be useful when third party information is denied, since mostly information is provided without claiming confidentiality at the time of providing information by third party to public authority.. THIRD PARTY ONLY IF CONFIDENTIA 011112.pdf
  4. 7 points
    CIC Says: effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker The Orders of the CIC are as under: Now the issue to be decided is whether the CPIO was obliged under subsection 3 of section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to transfer the RTI application to the State Government of Maharashtra. In our view, there cannot be any absolute position on this. The decision to transfer any RTI application to an authority outside the Central Government would have to depend largely on the particular case. If, for example, there is anything on record to suggest, even remotely, that the subject matter is definitely concerned with a state public authority, there is no ban under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in transferring the RTI application to that public authority, contrary to whatever the DoPT circular might say. But, this cannot be a rule. That is because both the appropriate governments, the Central and the State, are two distinct bodies and, under different jurisdictions, the former under the CIC while the latter under the SIC. Indiscriminate and mandatory transfer of RTI applications to public authorities outside the appropriate government would, sooner or later, raise issues of jurisdiction and the citizen would find it difficult to approach, in complaint or second appeal, to any particular Information Commission. Therefore, we cannot particularly hold the CPIO responsible for not transferring the RTI application in this case. This brings us to a larger question. We have been noticing for some time that the Department of Personnel and Training has appointed a large number of CPIOs, obviously for the benefit of the citizens. However, RTI applications containing more than one item of information are being split by the RTI Cell of the Department among many of these CPIOs to respond directly to the information seeker. As a result of this, quite often, it is noted that the CPIO representing the individual division/section of the Department responds to the information seeker mechanically by stating that the information is not available or by providing only a piecemeal information. Unless the RTI application contains unmanageably a large number of queries, spread over the entire department, the effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker. We would like the CPIO to place this before the Secretary of the Department for taking an appropriate decision and to revise the present arrangement. Orders.pdf
  5. 6 points
    Enclosed in this post, a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, wherein in para.7 it held that information can be denied dehors Sections 8,9,11. Moreover, information in appropriate cases can be denied based on the third part of the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005, thereby making the third part of the preamble of the statute being justiciable. The Aforementioned observation of the Supreme court of India, is patently erroneous for the following reasons: (a) It is judicially settled that the preamble is not justiciable. (b) A 13 judge bench in Keshavananda Bharathi case held that even the preamble of the constitution, though it is a part of the constitution is not justiciable. The preamble of the constitution is neither a source of power nor the source of limitations. (c) Hence, when even the preamble of the constitution of India being held not justiciable by a 13 judge bench, the preamble of the statute, which is subordinate to the constitution, cannot be justiciable. (d) The two judge bench is bound by the settled position of law by the 13 judge bench with regard to the non-justiciability of the preamble of the constitution, which is superior to the statute. (e) Hence for the aforementioned reasons a review petition is to be filed to correct the grave error committed by the Supreme court of India, highlighting the aforementioned factors. Apex court - Disclosure of marks in civil service examination should not be disclosed mechanically.pdf
  6. 6 points
    Mr. Shahid Raza Burni of PUNE has filed FIRST RTI Petition in Pune Police Station on 12.10.2005.
  7. 6 points
    Interesting question indeed. I searched wiki and found that the first application was given to a Pune police station.
  8. 6 points
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SWATENTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP© No. 7529 of 2009), D/13.12.2013. Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39849 (i) Natural justice- Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. (Para 17) (ii) Natural justice- Right of hearing- Even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded- It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature. (Para 23) (iii) Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far reaching civil consequences- Compliance with principles of natural justice is a condition precedent for passing of a recommendation u/s 20(2) of the Act. (Paras 21 and 22) (iv) Grounds stated in the provision of S.20(2) of the Act are exhaustive and it is not for the Commission to add other grounds which are not specifically stated in the language of S.20(2) of the Act- Provision of S. 20(2) of the Act has to be construed and applied strictly- Its ambit cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission. (Para 26) (v) ‘Negligence’ per se is not a ground on which proceedings u/s 20(2) of the Act can be invoked- The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. (Para 28) (vi) Besides finding that any of the stated defaults have been committed by such officer, the Commission has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within the specified time was committed persistently and without a reasonable cause. (Para 30) (vii) State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi-judicial powers-In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision making process. (Para 14) (viii) State Information Commissions- Principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions. (Para 15) Supreme Court of India on Section 20(2).pdf
  9. 6 points
    hai............ very good news ... i file case before consumer court in march against municipal council ,Punjab ...... and consumer court after contesting case ...decided on 30/5/2013 court Decide Case in my favour and penalise the PIO for not provide information within 30 days ..... opposite party contest case very strongly with new case law ...but court not relied upon latest jugments ie.padhulika and many more.....aginast my case... but court announce order in my favour.. JUGMENT OF CASE PREPARE WITH IN 2 -3 DAYS........AND THEN I POST THE COPY OF ORDER FOR DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR................THKS ... THIS SITE/FORUM FOR HELP ME 2 CONTEST THE CASE......AND CASE LAW'S REGARDS.........:):):):):):):):)
  10. 6 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Once consent order passed no disagreement possible The Delhi HC has ruled that once the Information Commissioner passes and order and clearly states that the order is passed with the consent of the parties, then the applicant cannot seek relief from the Court. If the applicant did not agree to the "consent", then he should have immediately brought it to the notice of the IC. Full judgment is attached to this post.
  11. 6 points
    The Full Bench Orders of the CIC are as below : 56. The respondent’s counsel has tenaciously argued that the appellant’s request for information is not in public interest and that he is seeking this information for extraneous considerations. The question is whether information is disclosable under the RTI Act only in public interest and not otherwise. Suffice to say that RTI Act does not draw a distinction between demand for information in public interest and private interest. The Act provides for disclosure of information to the citizens of India subject to the provisions of section 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the RTI Act. In other words, appellant is not required to establish any larger public interest in his search for all classes of information. He is required to establish public interest only in particular clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, we hold that appellant need not establish public interest while seeking information for all classes of information. CIC_AD_A_2012_000570_M_110032.pdf
  12. 6 points
    The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. CPIO(W.P. © 6614/2008 & CM APPL No. 12685/2008) considered that once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. {25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world.......} Even, the same was endorsed by Hon'ble SC in an Order Dated Apr 16 2013 (R K Jain Vs Union of India). Regards R K Mishra.
  13. 6 points
    Often it happens that the Public authority submits false information before the commission to escape penalty and the information commission, on the basis of such submitted records, pronounces the judgement, even without imposing the requisite penalty on the PIO. This clearly demoralizes the RTI appellant / complainant. Under this circumstance the following procedure when followed, will effectively counter the aforesaid illegal procedures and will act as a deterrent in future against such practices by the public authority. 1. After the decision is pronounced in the appeal (u/s 19(3)) / complaint (u/s 18) by the commission- (a) File an RTI to the commission to procure the certified copies of all the records submitted by the public authority before the said commission in the appeal no....../ complaint no........... (b) File an RTI to the public authority to procure the certified copies of all the records submitted by the public authority before the said commission in the appeal no....../ complaint no........... © The procedure mentioned in (a),(b) will help the RTI applicant to cross-check the authenticity of the information provided by the Public authority in the said appeal / complaint before the commission. (d) Based on the information received from the Public authority and the commission for the appeal no...../ complaint no....... and if you find that false / incorrect information was supplied, then a private complaint u/s 200 CrPC can be filed be filed before the magistrate under whose jurisdiction the public authority is covered, highlighting - - the fact that false information being submitted to the information commission and requesting the magistrate for investigation and other appropriate action against the public authority as per law (e) The facility of filing a private complaint u/s 200 CrPC before the magistrate is provided by the Supreme court judgment - IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS VS. VEERAN NARANG - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2225 OF 2011 (f) Summary of the judgement: The Commission/Tribunal is not a "COURT" hence application under section 340 of CrPC read with 195 of CrPC does not applicable becuse the procedure mentioned in section 340 and 195 of CrPC is applicable to the courts only.The Commission/Tribunal is not powered with to try the offences committed before it. (g) The judgment is attached to this post. Apex court - Private complaint is maintainable for false statements in quasi judicial proceeding.pdf
  14. 6 points
    We have filed a PIL vide CWP 20545 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the Fee hike issue & other Commercial activities in the Private Schools. Now the Hon’ble Court has passed the orders which are attach herewith. Thanks & Regards Rohit Sabharwal (RTI Activist) President Anti Corruption & Crime Investigation Cell (Regd) CWP 20545 of 2009 82. No doubt, in the instant cases before us, as per the replies filed by the official respondents themselves, most of the schools are fulfilling the requirements of submitting the Annual Reports etc. At the same time, it is also a matter of record that there is hardly any examination of these records which are simply dumped by the schools with the Boards/Regulatory Authorities and keep lying there in their archives. Needless to mention that it is the duty of the official respondents to ensure that increase in the fees undertaken by a particular school is justified and necessitated by other circumstances like increase in expenditure or because of developmental activities needed and does not result into profiteering. It is also to be ensured that the funds are not diverted elsewhere. However, there is no mechanism for checking the same. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh should also provide for some permanent Regulatory Bodies/mechanism which would go into this aspect on regular basis. We accordingly give directions to the States of Punjab, Haryana as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh to examine the feasibility of establishing such a mechanism and take decision there upon within a period of six months from today. Till that is done and in order to sort out the issue as to whether the hike in fees by the schools is proper or not, we would like to follow the same path as done by the High Court of Delhi, namely, setting up a Committee with the task to go into the accounts of the Schools and find out the reasonableness of increase in fees by the schools. Accordingly, we appoint three committees, one each for the State of Punjab, State of Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, with the following constitutional members:- FOR STATE OF PUNJAB:- i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh (Retd.): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board. FOR STATE OF HARYANA:- i) Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Kiran Anand Lall (Retd.): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board. FOR UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH:- i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S.Mongia (Retd. Chief Justice): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board, U.T. Chandigarh. The fee of the Chairperson(s) shall be Rs. 25,000/- per sitting and that of the members Rs. 10,000/- each per sitting. The said fee shall be shared by the schools in the respective States. In addition to the aforesaid fee, the Committee(s) shall also be reimbursed the amount of clerical and other expenses. They shall also be provided suitable place/office for undertaking the task assigned. Since the schools are submitting the accounts with the Boards, these accounts and records can be given by the Boards to the Committees. In addition all the schools shall also render full cooperation to the Committee(s) by submitting the Account and other necessary information demanded by the Committee(s). The scope of the work undertaken by the Committee(s) shall be restricted to the academic year 2012-13. Likewise, for the academic year 2013-14, though the schools shall have the right to fix their fees structure, they will have to justify the same by producing necessary material before the Committee(s). The Committee(s) shall be entitled to specifically look into the aspects as to how much fees increase was required by each individual school on the examination of records and accounts etc. of these schools and taking into consideration the funds available etc. at the disposal of the schools. While doing this exercise, it shall keep in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Modern School case (supra) as well as Action Committee Unaided Pvt. Schools case (supra) and other decision noted by us in this judgment. Needless to mention in case it is found that the fees hiked by the schools was more than warranted, the direction can be given to those schools to refund the same to the students. Orders.pdf
  15. 6 points
    I am attaching CIC decision concerning supply of information which has originated from other public authority. I hope it would be useful to our members. OTHER PUB AUTH INFO 021112.pdf
  16. 5 points
    This forum and many others can be helpful for people, because one can create a question or a request and those, who know the answer, will help.
  17. 5 points
    I moved my card from Bangalore(KA51) to Ghaziabad and got the road tax refund. Here is the step by step process 1. Fille Form 28 ( Noc FORM) , 3 copies, attach all the photostat copies like car papers, insurance, pollution etc ans submit it in RTO. 2. They will immediately issues a form for police verification.( I got it within half and hour). 3. Go to Police Commisionor office and you find out the place where you have get the the clearance. Go after 11AM. They will verify and sign the form. I went around 10 AM but got it signed only around 12 PM. 4. Same Day I submitted it the form back to RTO and they asked me to come after 21 days. They will take your RC and issue a acknowledgement. 5. I went to RTO again after 21 days and got the NOC. ( two copies). make sure you get two copies. 6. Got my car registered in Ghaziabad after paying tax. ( Got it done thru some agent for RS 5000). 7. Send a written application to RTO Bangalore for road tax refund. Attach all the required necessary documents. 8. Follow up with them and got the cheque after a month. Import tips: Just apply for NOC only 20 days before you are planned to leave. Because in case you get the NOC early and get ur car reregistered after 15-20 days, they will apply some penalty. In my case Applied for NOC : 28 Aug 2012 Got NOC: 21 Sep ( However date on NOC is 3 Sep) Applied in Ghaziabad: 5 NOV They took 8000 as penalty apart from road tax. For My Ritz car which i purchased in 2011 and i got a refund of Rs 50000
  18. 5 points
    Online Filing of RTI Application extended to 37 Ministries – DOPT has plans to extend online filing of RTI applications to all Ministries in Mid August 2013 No.1/1/2013-112 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated: 30/07/2013 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Extension of RTI web portal for online filing of RTI application. In continuation of this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 22/04/2013, it is intimated that the facility of RTI online web portal has been extended to 37 Ministries/Departments of Government of India, so far (list enclosed). It is planned to extend this facility to all the remaining Ministries/Departments of Government of India by mid August, 2013. This facility is presently not proposed to be extended for field offices/ attached/ subordinate offices. 2. It is again requested that training to all the CPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) may be provided by the concemed Ministry/Department, through the officials trained by DoPT/NIC. If required, further training can be provided by DoPT/NIC, on the request of the concerned Ministry/Department. User name/password to all the CPIOs and FAAs are to be provided by RTI Nodal Officers of the concerned Ministry/Department. It is imperative that the RTI Nodal Officers update the details of CPIOs/FAAs in the system and issue user name and password to them at the earliest. 3. The contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned. sd/- (Sandeep Jain) Director LIST OF MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS TO WHOM RTI ONLINE WEB PORTAL FACILITY HAS BEEN EXTENDED 1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH & EDUCATION 2. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION 3. DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBABNDRY, DAIRYING & FISHERIES 4. DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH 5. DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICALS & PETROCHEMICALS 6. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 7. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 8. DEPARTMENT OF DISINVESTMENT 9. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 10.DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION 11.DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING 12.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES 13.MINISTRY OF CULTURE 14.MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 15.MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES 16.MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE 17.MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 18.MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING 19.MINISTRY OF PANCHAYATI RAJ 20. MINISTRY OF POWER 21.MINISTRY OF ROAD TRNSPORT & HIGHWAYS 22.MINISTRY OF STEEL 23. PRESICENT SECRETARIAT 24.VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARIAT 25. MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES 26. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 27. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS 28. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 29.DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS 30. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS 31. DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRY 32. MINISTRY OF TOURISM 33. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT 34. MINISTRY OF SHIPPING 35.MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS 36. PLANNING COMMISSION 37. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & PG Download DOPT Office Memorandum No.1/1/2013-112 dated 30.07.2013
  19. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Marks Qualifications and experience of successful The Uttarkhand High Court has ruled that Marks, Qualifications and Experience of successful candidates cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(j). They have to be disclosed. Full judgment is attached to this post.
  20. 5 points
    Maharashtra RTI Rules draw a clear distinction between: > Payment of initial fee, which is to be accompanied while making a RTI Application under section 6(1), (here, Court fee stamp is one of the acceptable mode of payment), and, > Payment of any further fees u/s. 7(1) & 7(5), towards the cost of providing information (here, Court fee stamp is not an acceptable mode of payment). But, as per the GAD circular, an Indian Postal Order is an acceptable mode of payment for both the purposes i.e. payment of initial fee which is to be accompanied along with a RTI Application u/s. 6(1), as well as, payment of any further fees u/s. 7(1) & 7(5), towards the cost of providing the requested information.
  21. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Untraceability of record cannot result in compensa The Delhi High Court has ruled that untraceability of a record/file cannot always lead to awarding of compensation under Sec 19(8). This provision, to my mind, should be invoked only where the record, despite being available, is not provided to the applicant and as a result thereof he suffers some loss for which he needs to be compensated. A bona fide inability to trace the old records cannot warrant levy of compensation.
  22. 5 points
    18-07-2013 was the day of argument on the application for impleadment filled by the DoPT. I and Mr. P.C. Bali from Amritsar was present at NCDRC on 18-7-2013 for this arguments. Councel for DoPT aurged for his impleadment as the order of NCDRC will effect to all PA & PIO through out India. I objected for the same and aurged accordingly. Justice K.S. Chaudhary said to DoPT - I am not impleading you in this RP, but you may present in final arguments and if you have to say something, you may put your version. Finally Court has reserved todays order and has not given us next date for final arguments. I am trying to get status of our case at CONFONET, so that I can see the wording of order dated 18-7-2013. Anybody can check the case status by typing RP/3146/2012 and may update this thread.
  23. 5 points
    Attached is a judgment of the Supreme Court related to concurrent remedies available under 2 Acts....in this case, the CPA and the Electricity Act. It is dated 01 July 2013 Members need to study the Electricity Act in detail as well as the reasons in this judgment. One way out seems to be (as stated several times earlier in this forum) that: 1. Under CPA, do not pray for "disclosure of information". Only pray for compensation for "defficiency of service". 2. Under RTI, only pray for "information" and not any compensation for defficiency of service. 3. If you pray for "compensation" under RTI, it should only be for "detriment suffered due to delay in provision of information". Concurrent remedies available under CPA vs Electricity Act SC 01 Jul 2013.pdf
  24. 5 points
    In a land mark judgment, the Hon’ble CIC in undersigned second appeal numberCIC/VS/A/2012/000291, has ordered that all branches & offices of Corporation Bank to put up signage/sign boards informing the details about PIOs/FAAs and other relevant details about the RTI Act 2005 as was decided by Hon’ble Commission in case number No.CIC/SG/C/2010/001324/10035 dated 04.11.2010. The link of the order is given below; http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_VS_A_2012_000291_03150_M_109726.pdf
  25. 5 points
    > As suggested earlier, please refer to the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which lays down that "either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:" That you have filed more than one RTI Applications is not listed as a ground for declining a request for information under the section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act, and as such a PIO cannot reject your request for information on that ground. You need to file a first appeal u/s. 19(1) on that basis / ground. (although ideally one should be as brief & precise as possible) > As far as going in for an inspection of information is concerned, you can file a first appeal with following as your ground of first appeal: Grounds for Appeal: I would also hereby like to submit the following grounds for this first appeal: 1) As per the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005, requested information cannot be denied on the ground that it is voluminous in nature, and thereby, citing administrative difficulties in providing the same. Please find quoted below, an extract from judgment dated 07-01-2010 of Honorable High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009: (The above cited judgment is available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544) Quote – “13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.” – Unquote. Moreover, please also note, that it is a prerogative of a citizen to invoke his right to inspect the records of Public Authority as defined under section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, And as such, the same [section 2(j)(i)] cannot be invoked by a Public Information Officer while disposing off a request for information under section 7(1), Thereby, construing the provision of section 2(j)(i) as a pre-condition to providing the information requested under section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
  26. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by ambrish.p: Appellate Authority under RTI Act can issue Appellate authority under RTI Act can issue direction to such public authority to take any of those steps as are suitable to coerce the persons having information to abide by directions issued under the RTI Act In paragraph 44, this Full Bench of Delhi High Court, from the preamble of the RTI Act, also notes that it is passed because 'democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed'. It restricts the right to information to citizens vide Section 3. Citizen seeking information need not give any reasons for such information need not give any reasons for such demand & there is no requirement of scrutiny into his locus standi. I find that when the procedure to exercise the right to information is statutorily prescribed & its breach is to be redressed exclusively by the “forums” created thereunder, the “execution” of such adjudicated entitlement against unwilling establishment by invoking all available legal avenues is the deliberate measure & an integral part of the scheme of RTI Act Appellate authority under RTI Act can issue direction to such public authority.pdf
  27. 5 points
    File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000033/RM 4. AA vide order dt 28.9.11, directed CPIO to only provide details mentioned in the PAN card without providing any other information. 5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. CPIO submitted that in pursuance of the AA’s order vide letter dt 30.9.11 the appellant was informed the name of the PAN card holder, father’s name, date of birth and PAN card number. DECISION 6. The Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO and the appeal is disposed of. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2012_000033_M_105317.pdf PAN CARD DETAILS.pdf
  28. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Compensation if no info due to missing docs The Jharkhand HC has ruled that the SICs order ordering compensation to an RTI applicant because no info was supplied since documents were "missing", is correct and well reasoned.
  29. 5 points
    The respective judgement of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal is attached herewith. HCK WA Judgement.pdf HCK WP Judgement.pdf
  30. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Unreasoned order of CIc remanded back by HC Another old order of the Punjab & Haryana HC where it has remanded the matter back to the CIC since the order it passed was totally unreasoned. Having gone through the decision taken by respondent No.1, as extracted above, I find that there is no discussion on the issue. No reasons as to under what circumstances a particular information has been directed to be supplied and the other denied, has not been assigned. The order (Annexure P-8) is not a reasoned order. The impugned order directs the petitioner to supply information in relation to domestic consumers, however, while allowing protection to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, it has been held that information in relation to commercial consumers is not required to be given. The order, however, does not give out reasons for making a distinction between the two set of consumers. The supply of connections for domestic purposes and commercial purposes are part and parcel of the same business.
  31. 5 points
    His FB posting after d appearance> "Many friends had been concerned about my Delhi High Court proceedings and given me a lot of advice. I received many email messages, telephones and sms before and after and after appearing in Court on 10 January, 2013. I want to share the events in Court. Prashant Bhushan had also been gracious enough to come to the court to represent me along with Colin Gonsalves. The judge asked me to come forward and join the lawyers. He told me that I should understand the way Courts work and their norms. He said that when addressing the Court a certain sobriety should be maintained and I should show respect to the institution of the Court. I stated that I had felt the Court’s actions would stymie the functioning of Information Commissions and the RTI Act. I reiterated that I believed I was raising certain issues of importance to the Nation and had stated nothing which could be considered as scandalizing a court. The judge then addressed Colin and Prashant saying they should display a better understanding of the difficulties which the Courts face like shortage of judges. He also said that the judges work very hard and people do not understand the difficulties and problems faced by the judiciary. Prashant and Colin said they appreciated the Courts difficulties and I had in no way committed any act of contempt. Prashant gave an explanation of the fact that I had expressed my anguish at the large number of matters where stays were being given by the High Courts. He further pointed out that the Court was not following provisions of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution. Since a large number of matters were being given ex-parte stays this constitutional amendment was brought by Shri Shanti Bhushan to ensure that on a plea by the party which was not present, the Court would have to decide the matter in 15 days. The judge again referred to the limitations of the Courts and the constraints in which they function. This shows that even Constitutional amendments are buried and we keep talking of new laws! Ultimately the petitioner said he is wanted to withdraw the petition and Colin and Prashant both advised me to agree. I agreed and the petition is now closed. This has left me with more questions which are now added to the earlier ones. This entire journey in the Courts was a useless exercise. The petitioner did not want the enquiry to be held, and he succeeded by fling a false affidavit. I decided not to point out the obvious flaw in the High Court naming me as a respondent personally, so that I could raise certain larger issues. Incidentally, Delhi High Court refuses to treat the Commission as a party when hearing any of the writs against the Commissions orders. How I acting as an Information Commissioner could be personally named as a respondent for an act done as a Commissioner in discharge of my duties is a mystery. However,-Don Quixote-like,- I thought I would try and correct the system. At the end nothing was achieved, because everyone explained to me how a Court can make me come to Delhi dozens of times, without even touching on any of the core issues. The Indian judicial system can wear you down by its slow and grinding process, and that is a danger bigger than the contempt power."
  32. 5 points
    The decision of the apex court is attached to this post. Apex court on Section 8(1)g.pdf
  33. 5 points
    I have today emailed attached letter to CIC in connection with decision relating to administrative difficulties of CPIO. Copy of the decision is also attached herewith. AMIN DIFFI 271212.doc ADMIN DIFFICULTIES 211212.pdf
  34. 5 points
    I am attaching decision dated 08-10-2012 of CIC in the matter of interpretation of RTI application. INTERPRETING RTI APPLN 081012.pdf
  35. 4 points
    As per section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, even payslips received by a Govt. employee is a public record and not personal information. Please find section 4(1))b)(x) quoted below: You will have to file a first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the concerned First Appellate Authority on the following grounds. GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL: 1. The following information sought through the RTI application are a public record and nor personal information. 1) Joining date letter as he joined in the year 1981: This is a public record and not personal information. 2) Retirement date and retirement letter This is a public record and not personal information. 5) Last payslip before retirement: This is a public record as per section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act and not personal information. 6) Last payslip after retirement: This is a public record as per section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act and not personal information. 2. With respect to point no. (3), (4), (7), (8) and (9) of the RTI application too the PIO needs to disclose the requested information as it is in the larger public interest (establish the grounds of larger public interest ....)
  36. 4 points
    If you are filing RTI at village level in Andhra Pradesh, it seems there are no RTI filing fees, however please check the following links for Andhra Pradesh RTI Fees: http://tsic.gov.in/apicWebsite/Downloads/GOs/GO_8.pdf http://tsic.gov.in/apicWebsite/Downloads/GOs/GO_9.pdf http://tsic.gov.in/apicWebsite/Downloads/GOs/GO_10.pdf
  37. 4 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Unreasoned order of Info Commission set aside Many members of this portal have been dissatisfied with orders of Info Commissions which are totally unreasoned and sometimes the operative part is only one single sentence. In a landmark order, the Punjab & Haryana HC has ruled that such unreasoned or single line orders cannot be upheld by the HC. It remanded the matter back to the CIC (Central Information Commission) to rehear the matter within the four boundaries of the RTI Act: 9. In the impugned order dated 12.1.2011, the only relevant reasoning recorded is to the following effect: "We fully agree with the contention of the respondents that, if disclosed, these notings could impede the prosecution of the accused persons." 10. The scope of the adjudicatory functions of the Authorities under the Act including the Central Information Commission came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as Namit Sharma v. Union of India, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 903. It was clearly held that at the stage of second appeal i.e. the Information Commission (Central/State) performs adjudicatory functions which are specifically oriented and akin to a judicial determinative process. It was further held that the application of mind and passing of reasoned orders are inbuilt into the scheme of the Act. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 12.1.2011, Annexure P7, passed by the Central Information Commissioner is not a reasoned order and the specific issue of determination as to whether the information sought by the petitioner fell under any of the exemptions under Section 8 of the Act has not even been examined. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission, Annexure P7, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi for passing of orders CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3879 OF 2011 6 afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and by limiting the scope of adjudication of the second appeal preferred by the petitioner strictly within the jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of the Act. It would be appreciated if such fresh decision is taken expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of conveying of a certified copy of this order.
  38. 4 points
    In an order dated 13 March 2013, the CIC has ruled that the applicant has to pay multiple RTI application fees (in this case 115 X Rs. 10 = Rs. 1150) since the information was with the 115 divisional offices of LIC. The PIO of LIC had agreed to transmit the application electronically to the 115 divisional offices and the applicant was directed to pay the fees to the main PIO. Order is attached to this post. Applicant to pay multiple RRI fees for transferring to divisional office PIOs.pdf
  39. 4 points
    Decision dt. 08.07.2013 of the CIC in File No. CIC/SM/C/2012/000925 [Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Murarka; PA: CPIO, Supreme Court of India] is available at- http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2012_000925_M_113862.pdf
  40. 4 points
    The matter has to be seen in context of s.33 of Advocates Act , 1961 , CPC and RTI Act . RTI Act : RTI Act is silent on the matter . There are examples where Private Advocates hired by PIOs have been representing them at Appeals and Complaints and they have been allowed by the ICs . The only question that remains then is whether a non-advocate can represent represent PIO before IC . Since a non-advocate can represent an Appellant , the PIO can not be denied the same privilege since liability u/s 20 is his personal . But the matter is technical and may be interpreted in legal terms . CPC and Advocates Act : s.2(15) & Order III CPC AND s.33 of Advocates Act 1961 may be referred . Information Commissions are quasi-judicial Authorities performing judicial functions of a Court , they can direct recording evidence on oath , they have trappings of a Court - but still for this query they are not courts . Thus provisions of CPC do not apply strictly where a non-advocate can not be a PLEADER [ SC has though held that even a non-advocate may sometime assume the role of a PLEADER under special circumstances in a non-professional / non-practising capacity if such person is well-wisher of the litigant - the litigant had no faith in advocates ] . Thus provision of s.33 of Advocates Act and CPC stand breached in special circumstances . But here the non-advocate must get SPA/GPA from the litigant and the litigant must first get permission from Court for the non-advocate to represent him there in the matter . Judgement by Hon'ble SC in matter of C._Venkatachalam_vs_Ajitkumar_C._Shah_&_Ors._on_29_August,_2011 [ attached herein ] is significant . Though it is related to CPA , yet the findings on Tribunals could be common to all tribunals . But, in any case , the provisions of CPC will not be applied to RTI cases . The conflict with Advocates Act s.33 stands answered in the referred judgement . C._Venkatachalam_vs_Ajitkumar_C._Shah_&_Ors._on_29_August,_2011.PDF
  41. 4 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Asking for 1991 info in 2010 is misuse of RTI The Gujarat HC has ruled that a person asking for info about a meeting held in 1991 in 2010 is misusing the RTI Act. Full judgment is attached to this post.
  42. 4 points
    The Orders of the PSIC are as below: Therefore, it is deemed fit to issue bailable warrants to Mr. Manmohan Singh, former Executive Officer-PIO, M. C., Fatehgarh Churian now E.O., Municipal Committee, Patti, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 18(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, read with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with the direction that the said PIO shall produce the relevant record relating to the information demanded by the complainant in his RTI application on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, to serve the bailable warrants on Mr. Manmohan Singh, E.O.—cum- Public Information Officer, Municipal Committee, Patti. The bailable warrants dated 5.06.2013 are sent to the SSP, Taran Tarn, for serving the same to Mr. Manmohan Singh, Executive Officer -cum- Public Information Officer, Municipal Committee, Patti. and the SSP will ensure his presence before the Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.07.2013. A copy of this order is sent to the SSP for strict compliance. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.doc
  43. 4 points
    The Orders of the PSIC are as below : I have heard the parties and gone through the queries. Most of the queries raised by the information-seeker are specific regarding number of cases/appeals pending, heard or disposed of. This kind of data should be available with any public authority and cannot be denied. So far as the right to inspect the record is concerned, this is prerogative of the information-seeker and the respondent cannot insist that the information-seeker may inspect the record. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to give point-wise information on all the eight issues raised by the information-seeker except pertaining to Sr. No.5, where certified copies of all the notices of hearings issued to the applicants in all the cases have been demanded. This information certainly is voluminous. After the respondent has supplied information on other eight points, the appellant may either specify the particular cases in which he wants to see, whether notices were served or alternatively inspect the record. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.doc
  44. 4 points
    Dear Member a. T.N. Police is not exempted organization, list of PIOs: http://www.tnpolice.gov.in/pdfs/RTI_NOS.pdf b. "The question of prejudice of the accused on account of denial of the copy of the FIR at the earlier stage therefore assumes greater importance and on a proper consideration thereof, I hold that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a certified copy of the first information report, which is a public document, should be granted to the accused on his payment of the legal fees therefor at any stage even earlier than the stage of Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the later stage, the accused will have the right to have a free copy but the same would not take away the right he already has in law to have a certified copy of the first information report on payment of the legal fees......."." Extract from:Please refer attachment. Also read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/37026-whether-fir-notice-public-documents.html#post96673 regards FIR IS PUBLIC DOCUMENT.pdf
  45. 4 points
    The Orders of the PSIC are as below: AC- 1293/12 It has further been submitted that on 08.01.2013, DRO has issued warning letters to three dealing clerks of the DRA Branch and finally, when the file could not be traced, the Deputy Commissioner has taken the following action: 1. S/Sh. Surinder Singh, DRA; and Paramjit Singh, dealing clerk have been place under suspension and show cause notices served on them; 2. Show cause notices issued to Sh. Khushkaran Singh, DRA (T); and former clerks S/Sh. Chandanbir Singh, Harpreet Singh and Harbhajan Lal; 3. A committee comprising Superintendent (Grade-I) and Superintendent (Revenue) has been constituted to take all possible steps to trace the records reported lost and submits its report by 22.01.2013. The explanation tendered is satisfactory and no malafide is suspected on the part of any of the officials of the respondent for the delay caused. No part of the delay can be termed or deliberate and as such, the show cause notice issued on 04.12.2012 is dispensed with. Respondent PIO is, however, directed to provide the point-wise complete, relevant and specific information to the appellant, free of cost, per registered post, within a period of three weeks, under intimation to the Commission. Orders.doc
  46. 4 points
    One of the judges retired before the order was pronounced. Hence the review petition will have to be reheard again. New bench has not been fixed as yet.
  47. 4 points
    In a novel order, CIC has allowed an applicant to retrieve information from a Computer System of the public authority, in presence of the designated officer of the PA. Appellant will also be provided opportunity of being present at the Company’s office in Fort area at Mumbai where he will, along with the designated officer of the company make an attempt to retrieve the information as sought by him as in point (a) from the database with the help of the computer software. Mutually convenient date to be fixed within four weeks of receipt of order. The full order is attached to this post. Retrieve Info from computer system.pdf
  48. 4 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Penalty to be imposed only after hearing Attached is a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which has ruled that penalty under Sec 20 of the Act can only be imposed after giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court also advised the Gujarat State Information Commission to keep its records properly and send Notices only through Registered Post.
  49. 4 points
    CIC in its decision dated 05-10-2012 has ordered as under: 6. The Respondents reiterated the response of the CPIO on the weeding out of the relevant records. Since the Appellant and many others had been contesting cases in the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is unusual for the UPSC to weed out the relevant records. However, if the public authority does not any longer possess the relevant records, there is no way those can be produced. This brings us to a very peculiar situation. After a long battle for seeking such information, the Appellant and probably many others come to a situation where the information they have all along been seeking is no longer in existence. In order to avoid such a situation, at least in those cases where RTI applications have been filed before the UPSC, the records pertaining to those information seekers should be retained till the entire Appellant process is complete even if it would mean exceeding the period prescribed in the retention schedule. We would like the CPIO to place our observations before the competent authority in the Commission to pass appropriate instructions to all concerned in this regard. RETENTION UPSC.pdf
  50. 4 points
    The Judgment dt. 3.10.2012 of the Hon'ble SCI in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012) is uploaded for information of members:- REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (@ CC 14781/2012) Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .. Petitioner Versus Cen. Information Commr. & Ors. .. Respondents O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Central Information Commissioner (for short ‘the CIC’) acting under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’) was right in denying information regarding the third respondent’s personal matters pertaining to his service career and also denying the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave the following reply on 15.9.2008: ”As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages. You have sought the details of salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which relates to personal information the disclosures of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual hence denied as per the RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer Promotion to Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number. Details of salary to the post along with statutory and other deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to provide as per RTI provisions under Section 8(1)(j) for the reasons mentioned above. As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B. Lute, are in 13 Numbers. Salary details is rejected as per the provision under Section 8(1)(j) for the reason mentioned above. As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute, are not being provided on the ground that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Please see RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j). As to Point No.5: Copy of EPF (Staff & Conditions) Rules 1962 is in 60 pages. As to Point No.6: Copy of return of assets and liabilities in respect of Mr. Lute cannot be provided as per the provision of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1. As to Point No.7: Details of investment and other related details are rejected as per the provision of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1. As to Point No.8: Copy of report of item wise and value wise details of gifts accepted by Mr. Lute, is rejected as per the provisions of RTI Act under Section 8(1)(j) as per the reason explained above at point No.1. As to Point No.9: Copy of details of movable, immovable properties of Mr. Lute, the request to provide the same is rejected as per the RTI Provisions under Section 8(1)(j). As to Point No.10: Mr. Lute is not claiming for TA/DA for attending the criminal case pending at JMFC, Akola. As to Point No.11: Copy of Notification is in 2 numbers. As to Point No.12: Copy of certified true copy of charge sheet issued to Mr. Lute – The matter pertains with head Office, Mumbai. Your application is being forwarded to Head Office, Mumbai as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. As to Point No.13: Certified True copy of complete enquiry proceedings initiated against Mr. Lute – It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Please see RTI provisions under Section 8(1)(j). As to Point No.14: It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied to provide. As to Point No.15: Certified true copy of second show cause notice – It would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals and has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied to provide.” 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the CIC. The CIC passed the order on 18.6.2009, the operative portion of the order reads as under: “The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid information sought by the Appellant can be treated as ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It may be pertinent to mention that this issue came up before the Full Bench of the Commission in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/000628 (Milap Choraria v. Central Board of Direct Taxes) and the Commission vide its decision dated 15.6.2009 held that “the Income Tax return have been rightly held to be personal information exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the appellant herein has not been able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure of this information. This logic would hold good as far as the ITRs of Shri Lute are concerned. I would like to further observe that the information which has been denied to the appellant essentially falls in two parts – (i) relating to the personal matters pertaining to his services career; and (ii) Shri Lute’s assets & liabilities, movable and immovable properties and other financial aspects. I have no hesitation in holding that this information also qualifies to be the ‘personal information’ as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to convince the Commission that disclosure thereof is in larger public interest.” 5. The CIC, after holding so directed the second respondent to disclose the information at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (only posting details), 5, 10, 11, 12,13 (only copies of the posting orders) to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Further, it was held that the information sought for with regard to the other queries did not qualify for disclosure. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.4221 of 2009 which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge and the court dismissed the same vide order dated 16.2.2010. The matter was taken up by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2011 before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2011. Against the said order this special leave petition has been filed. 7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for vide Sl. Nos.1, 2 and 3 were pertaining to appointment and promotion and Sl. No.4 and 12 to 15 were related to disciplinary action and documents at Sl. Nos.6 to 9 pertained to assets and liabilities and gifts received by the third respondent and the disclosure of those details, according to the learned counsel, would not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents warranting disclosure and if those provisions are properly interpreted, it could not be said that documents pertaining to employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer could be treated as documents having no relationship to any public activity or interest. 9. Learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, the applicant making request for information is not obliged to give any reason for the requisition and the CIC was not justified in dismissing his appeal. 10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 while dealing with the right of examinees to inspect evaluated answer books in connection with the examination conducted by the CBSE Board had an occasion to consider in detail the aims and object of the RTI Act as well as the reasons for the introduction of the exemption clause in the RTI Act, hence, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this case to further examine the meaning and contents of Section 8 as a whole. 11. We are, however, in this case primarily concerned with the scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which are extracted herein below: “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. 14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. ……………….……………………..J. (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN) ………………………………….…..J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi October 3, 2012 SCI SLP(Civil) 27734 of 2012.pdf
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy