Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/28/2020 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Go for first appeal as stating total lumpsum expenditure of a particular Railway station is not exempted under Sec. 8 (1) (a) and Railways is not under defense ministry.
  2. 1 point
    Go for second appeal to CIC after making changes (deleting some paras in First appeal). File another RTI Application seeking information from Supdt of Police seeking certified copy of police report. Issue a notice under CP Act to Passport officer demanding to inform the reasons for denial of such PP and copy of police report. If PPO fails file a consumer complaint in DIstrict forum for deficiency of services as you have paid consideration and have the right to know the what was reported against you. The costs may not be more than Rs.500/- if you appear as party in person..
  3. 1 point
    Though outsiders are not concerned with the objective of your seeking such information, when you state your occupation and need for that information yourself, then it may appear fair. But, what I understand (general/vague) on this issue is after giving VRS to their employees, BSNL has outsourced the services and is at present running with bare skeletal staff. I believe that there should have been a well laid down policy, and enough powers were delegated for outsourcing as per the uniform policy. You can get a general idea on oursourcing contracts once you get the copy of policy/orders/notification.
  4. 1 point
    Communication is highly sensitive and this is the only reason BSNL was lagging behind as other private telcom companies compromise for cheap Chinese./Korean/Taiwan where hacking is not difficult. BSNL never use such hardware of enemy country. Entire world suspects Chinese telcom products. The importance is on technology adopted in a state like West Bengal. There are several disruptive activities in the state and the blame goes on enemy countries and migrants from border countries. ,It is my only apprehension and it can only be decided by BSNL/CIC as the entire state of West Bengal BSNL telcom network information and operations in one year is being solicited by a citizen and when some contractors in India can resort to compromise due to pressures/money and several other things. Those who seek information seek it openly and always keep transparency and accountability in operations and once if citizens himself hide their identity and seek that vast information without any idea of putting into logical conclusion of such vast data., the very purpose of RTI is defeated. Information is not for information sake and it should be put to logical conclusion. CIC must consider this though objective and reasons are unknown in RTI Act.
  5. 1 point
    CPIO has not applied his mind while denying information. 8 1 (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.: Tender documents/work contracts by any stretch of wild imagination is not information held by BSNL on behalf of any contractor, and their activity and work contracts are in larger public interest that is never exempted under RTI Act. But to me it appears that seeking such One year work contracts BSNL West Bengal is not fair. They can reject the information stating Sec,8 (1) (a) (d) as the communication net work should be confidential in a sensitive state like West Bengal. The tenders state the steps or machinery to be used etc., and while all other telcom companies made an exit from the country, due to strong fundamentals with great difficulty BSNL is surviving somehow. I am afraid that seeking such sensitive information will certainly weaken their status and they can not expose sensitive information. However, as you have started a process go for First Appeal but I am sure that it is not possible to get such sensitive information of entire state by a citizen without demonstrating larger public interest.
  6. 1 point


    Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar. (1) The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy. (2) The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional. (3) Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy. (4) Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance. (5) Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals. (6) Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication. (7) The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter. (8) Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down. (9) Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3). (10) Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process. (11) Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down. (12) Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009 and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act. (13) Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016. (14) Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002. (15) Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside. (16) Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill. The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review. (17) Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case. (18) The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.
  7. 1 point
    Divya, who was lauded by the Commission for making “constructive use of RTI for larger public interest” and for scripting “one of the success stories of the RTI”, had submitted before the Commission that the villagers were facing a serious problem because of the difference in spelling used for the name of the village by the post office and the revenue authorities. The CIC reprimanded the Department of Posts for insisting without any logic that the name was actually “Harha” and for demanding that the villagers get it changed in all their other documents accordingly. In his order, Acharyulu held that the Hadha post office was “duty-bound” to write the correct spelling of every town or village, because a name is the only way of identification and it should therefore be in sync the with revenue and other records. Subsequently, R.K. Mishra of National Informatics Centre, Unnao submitted to the Commission that as per the directions of the CIC, the Postmaster General, Kanpur on July 6 ordered the change in spelling of Harha to the correct “Hadha” in accordance with all the revenue and other official records. He also submitted that a new nameboard has been fixed with the correct spelling in the post office.
  8. 1 point
    You will need to file a first appeal on the following grounds: GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL: 1. With respect to point no. of my RTI application the PIO has replied that he has enclosed the photocopies of XX, but in fact, no such copies were attached with his reply. 2. With respect to point no. 2, 3 and 4 of my RTI application, the PIO has stated that the requested information is confidential and hence cannot be disclosed; And with respect to point no. 5 of my RTI application the PIO has stated that TN prohibits providing of such information. With regard to the PIO's aforesaid contentions, the RTI appellant would humbly to submit for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority, as under: I would hereby like to draw the kind attention towards the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which provides that a PIO shall 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. The PIO has neither provided the requested information nor rejected my request for any of the reasons specified in section 8 and 9 of the Act. Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information against point no. 2,3 4 and 5 of my RTI application in violation of section 7(1) of the RTI Act. PRAYERS: 1. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information. 2. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information free of cost in accordance and in compliance with the provision of section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
  9. 1 point
    This is your individual thinking' they have also served our nation and heros who fight for independence too and country builder of independent India. Sent from my SM-G550FY using RTI INDIA mobile app
  10. 1 point
    Repetition of a similar thread started by the same author on 02 May 2008 Psychological Evaluation of a Govt Official
  11. 1 point
    Most corrupt officials in India are suffering from ASPD (Anti-social Personality Disorder) aka Lack of Compassion and/or BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Borderline personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is prudent to seek ASPD & BPD Diagnosis Reports of such officials from relevant PIO (Public Information Officers). I have seen courts also appreciating such Diagnosis reports in some cases. This is known as Gandhigiri in Lage Raho Munna Bhai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30


  • Create New...

Important Information

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