- 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
1 pointFile a point wise first appeal as follows: Grounds of First Appeal: Please find the point wise grounds of first appeal as follows: 1. With respect to the information requested under point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, the PIO has provided merely a list of documents and not a photocopy of the documents requested for. 2. With respect to the information requested under point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application, the PIO has not specified as to under which particular provision of the RTI Act, he has forwarded these queries to another CPIO, that is to say the PIO has not specified whether he has forwarded the said queries under section 5(4) read with section 5(5) OR whether he has forwarded the said queries under section 6(3) of the RTI Act. 3. With respect to the information requested under point no. 5 and 6 of the RTI Act, the PIO has merely invoked section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without sufficiently justifying as to how these exemptions are applicable. That, denying information by just quoting sub-sections of section 8.1 of RTI Act, without giving meaningful justification for arriving at that reason for denial is against letter and spirit of RTI Act. Please find the decisions of the Central Information Commission as well as Hon'ble High Courts wherein it has ruled as follows: Decisions of CIC [Central Information Commission]: A] “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006. B] “The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.”CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006. Refer: CIC/SG/A/2011/003607/17371 dated 10-03-2012 C] “Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………” CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014. Court Judgements: D] “6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case ………….” Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010 E] “If no reasons are given in the appellate orders, then it is injustice to the natural justice because quasi judicial obligations are giving reasons for order, since justice is not expected to wear the inscrutable face of a sphinx” Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ibrahim Kunju v. State of Kerala AIR 1970 Ker 65. F] Judgement of HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 : “12………As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein. 13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information” P.S. Reasons for denial of information - Blog of Shri J. P. Shah. http://jps50.blogspot.com/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30