- 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
3 pointsPlease find attached herewith the CIC decision wherein it had ruled as follows: prefixing of why & what doesnt debar applicant from receiving info..pdf
2 pointsWait for say approximately 35 days from the date of filing of the RTI application and if you do not receive any response from the PIO, then file a first appeal with the concerned First Appellate Authority under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
2 pointsWe expect that positive success stories from our members and we take pride in those members achievements. CONGRATULATIONS.
1 pointChief Information Commissioner Sudhir Bhargava relied on several noted judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to reject the contentions of the ministry. Mother of Pradeep Yeshwanth Kokde, who is on death row in Yerwada jail in Pune, had approached the Union Home Ministry seeking copies of file notings made in relation to the mercy petition filed by him under the Right to Information. 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. The Home Ministry denied the information citing Article 74(2) of the Constitution which protects from disclosure the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President as it is privileged communication. The applicant argued before the Commission, highest adjudicating body onI matters, that the Article protects only the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers and that the information sought by her does not pertain to the ministerial advice. The ministry said that the recommendations along with all documents which lead to the formation of ministerial advice to the President of India are privileged under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution and cannot be disclosed under theI Act. These documents are an integral part of the government decision-making process and cannot be isolated from the ambit of “advice to the President”, the Home Ministry contended. The ministry cited a Delhi High Court order which had set aside an order of the Commission directing disclosure of information relating to the 2002 correspondence between the then President of India and the then Prime Minister relating to Gujarat riots. Chief Information Commissioner Sudhir Bhargava relied on several noted judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to reject the contentions of the ministry. The Commission, however, asked the ministry to sever all the names and other references from the files which could reveal the identity of public officials involved in the decision-making process. Kokde has been convicted for hatching a criminal conspiracy, abducting, raping and killing a BPO employee working at Hinjewadi, Pune on November 1, 2007.
1 pointIf the office remains closed send it by Regd Ack due. Service proof is enough. Whether FAA honours his statutory obligations are not, one has to follow laid down steps under RTI Act, if information is the focus. Time and again experts advised to focus on information alone, and for getting information you must go first for first appeal. Complaint is useless as complainant has no right for information under Sec.18 of complaint. Imposing penalty and recommendation of disciplinary action is not within hands of complainant, as it was ruled that the matter was in between Public authority and IC and that RTI Act gives right to information only for citizens. Rest is left to your discretion. regards prasad
1 pointFor the purpose of RTI Act, the Co-operative Societies can be broadly classified into two types: (1) Bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by a Govt. etc. (i.e. Societies which fall under the definition of public authority as given under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act); and (2) Bodies which do not fall under the definition of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act i.e. Private Bodies. The first type of Co-operative Societies are public authorities and therefore directly covered under the RTI Act; by virtue of section 2(h) of the RTI Act; and The second type of Co-operative Societies are covered indirectly under the RTI Act, by virtue of the definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In other words, both the type of Co-operative Societies are covered under the RTI Act, one directly under section 2(h) and the other indirectly under section 2(f). Please find para 52 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 quoted below:
1 pointearlier it was ignored at iffi function now it will be compulsorily honored since its has order now on my information to govt. Sent from my vivo 1606 using RTI INDIA mobile app
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30