1 pointSir I had requested the service record book of a police officer who got suspended due his abusive and harassing behavior with a cab driver who committed suicide due to this. The PIO denied it under 8(1)(j). No Reply for first appeal. After Second Appeal, TNSIC has closed the case without a personal hearing saying the decision of the PIO is right. Now what should I do to get the information? What petition should I file in HC and how much would it cost (approx.)?
1 pointThe PIO has cited the exemption of section 24(4) for denying the information requested by you. Please peruse the provision of section 24(4), the same is reproduced below: As you can see, your best chances of getting the information is, if you can show that the information sought by you pertains either to (1) allegation of corruption or (2) violation of human rights. It seems that, in the facts of your case, the information sought by you may possibly fall under the category of 'violation of human rights'. If that is the case, then you may file a first appeal before the concerned First Appellate Authority on the ground of violation of human rights, however, please note that the second proviso to section 24(4) provides that in such cases the power to disclose information lies with the State Information Commission.
1 pointSome of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so. To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site). Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years. Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30