Jump to content


Super Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


karira last won the day on November 2 2014

karira had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,891 Excellent


About karira

  • Rank
    RTI India Architect
  • Birthday 01/08/1957

Personal Information

  • Location
  1. Version


    The writ petitioner claiming to be an activist in the field of right to information, has approached us by filing the present writ petition with the prayer, the authority should not insist upon the detailed address of the applicant as and when any application is made under the Right to Information Act. He apprehends, the interested parties would cause a threat to the activist and in fact there had been past incidents of unnatural deaths of activist in the field, presumably by the interested persons having vested interest to conceal the information that is asked for by the activist. The petitioner submits, the authority may not insist upon the detailed address particularly when the applicant would provide a particular post box number that would automatically conceal their identity to the public at large. We have considered the relevant provisions of the statute. Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 would clearly provide, an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Looking to the said provision, we find logic in the submission of the petitioner. When the legislature thought it fit, the applicant need not disclose any personal detail, the authority should not insist upon his 2 detailed whereabouts particularly when post box number is provided for that would establish contact with him and the authority. In case, the authority would find any difficulty with the post box number, they may insist upon personal details. However, in such case, it would be the solemn duty of the authority to hide such information and particularly from their website so that people at large would not know of the details. We thus dispose of this writ petition by making the observations as above. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel should circulate the copy of this order to all concerned so that the authority can take appropriate measure to hide information with regard to personal details of the activist to avoid any harassment by the persons having vested interest. Read what is post box.
  2. Version


    RTI can be used to get Court related document
  3. Version


    The explanation offered by the CVC is not sufficient to excuse the delay in furnishing the information. The CVC has not been able to show that it acted ‘reasonably or diligently’ in the circumstances outlined hereinbefore. However, this Court would lay the responsibility for this delay in providing information collectively on the CVC and not on its CPIO alone. The exercise that the Court is now undertaking should in the usual course have been performed by the CIC in the appeal filed before it by the Petitioner. But for some reason, the CIC did not take up the appeal for a long time and this compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court. The Petitioner is right in contending that if the matter again goes back to the CIC only for the purpose of determining what should be the penalty and the compensation payable by the CVC, it would needlessly delay the matter further. High Court Delhi
  4. Version


    The petitioner sought for the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'Act'). Subsequently, the State Information Commission by an order dated 23.07.2009 directed the Public Information Officer of the Virudachalam Municipality to furnish the information as directed by the Commission on or before 10.08.2009 and get the acknowledgement of the petitioner and send the follow up information. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a District Secretary of V-Pillar India filed the present writ petition seeking for the direction to implement the order passed by the first respondent and to furnish the information as sought for vide his petition dated 14.06.2007. 3. It must be stated that the Act itself is a self-contained Code and it is not as if the commissioner did not order for the production of the information. On the contrary, under Section 25 of the Act, the Commissioner has got the power to monitor and report on the information. Under Section 18 of the Act, the commissioner also has got the power of the Civil Court including summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, requisitioning any public record or issuing summons for examination of the witnesses or documents. Any disobedience of the Act also visit with a penalty under Section 20 of the Act. 4. Therefore, the attempt made by the petitioner to make this Court as executing court for the Commission cannot be countenanced by this Court. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate action in terms of the Act. It is only in case where such informations are denied or the Commission's order is not supportable by the provisions of the Act, the question of an intervention by this Court will arise.
  5. Version


    second appeal within 45 days from the date of filing The provisions of the Act and Rules do not prescribe any period within which a second appeal under s.19(3) is to be disposed of. Section 19(6), however, prescribes the period within which appeals under sub-ss.(1) and (2) of s.19 are to be disposed of. Such appeals are to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It appears that the second appellate authority has not yet decided the petitioner’s appeal mainly for the reason that the statute has not prescribed any period within which a second appeal is to be disposed of. As rightly submitted by counsel for the petitioner in the absence of any period prescribed for disposing of 2 a second appeal under s.19(3), the second appellate authority was under an obligation to dispose of the petitioner’s second appeal within a reasonable time. A second appeal arises from a decision in the first appeal under s.19(1), and a first appeal arises from a decision or a failure to give a decision under s.7. The sparkle of a strong strand of speed woven through the sections of the Act is abruptly lost in the second appeal that has been allowed to run wild. This open-ended second appeal scheme is bound to make the s.6 request go totally adrift generating a multi-tier avoidable and unwanted offshoot Court proceedings such as this case. In my opinion, keeping in mind the respective maximum periods fixed for deciding the first appeal under s.19(1) and disposal of a request for obtaining information under s.7, the second appellate authority should have decided the second appeal within 45 days from the date of filing thereof. In view of the scheme of the statute, I think this period should be considered the reasonable period for deciding the second appeal. I am of the view that this petition should be disposed of directing the authority to decide the appeal. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering that the second appellate authority shall decide the petitioner’s second appeal within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.
  6. Version


    Taking into consideration larger perspective, respondent No.4 is permitted to inspect the records and thereafter can make a request for providing the specific number of pages required by paying the requisite fee. In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
  7. Version


    India being a socialist, democratic and secular democratic republic, the quest to obtain the information about the religion professed or not professed by a citizen cannot be in any event, be considered to be in public interest, which information is strictly confidential as per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948. Mere terming of the members of the 'family' in respect of which the information is sought as public figures and the leaders of nation, cannot change the statutory impact of the above provisions. It is thus evident that the petitioner is making efforts to make unjustified inroads into the privacy of said individuals even if they are public figures. Consequently, the information supplied to the Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal which stands dismissed.- Punjab & Haryana High Court
  8. Version


    Chief Information Officer is not a Court for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act 4. First and foremost, I am of the opinion that the Chief Information Officer is not a Court for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act. Section 18 of the Right to Information Act cloths the said authorities with certain powers of a Court. In Sub-Section (3) of Section 18, it is provided as under:- "18(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or office;" Section 20 of the Right to Information Act pertains to penalties, which can be imposed when it is found that the Public Information Officer or the Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 or malafide denied request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information, which was the subject matter of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing information. It can thus be seen that all acts or omissions connected with information which is mala fide withheld or information supplied is incorrect or incomplete or misleading, are dealt with under Section 20 by making such action penal. In this context, if one peruses Section 18, it clearly emerges that Information Commission is entrusted with the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for specified purposes such as summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and to compel them to give evidence, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record or copies for issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents. Such powers cannot be construed as converting the said authority into a Court for all purposes much less for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act.
  9. Version


    The writ petition challenging the order of the CIC is to be heard by a Single Judge of this Court but the same is listed before us because the petitioner has also sought a declaration of “Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. It is contended, that the ‘proviso’ virtually takes away the exemption provided for in Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and is too widely worded leaving unguided discretion in the Competent Authority to override the exemption by citing public interest, without defining “larger public interest” and is thus arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alternatively contended that the said ‘proviso’ may be required to be “read down”. We are unable to find any merit in the challenge to the vires of the ‘proviso’ aforesaid to Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e).
  10. Version


    A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
  11. Version


    Files in which applications for grant of Arms Licenses were processed would certainly contain personal information of the applicants since no Arms License can be granted without obtaining personal information of the applicant. The disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity of the person to whom the information pertains. Hence, such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act of the RTI Act, particularly when no element of public interest is involved in disclosure of such information. Therefore, the direction of the Commission for inspection of the files relating to applications for Arms License cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
  12. Version


    The strident approach of the Commission had the most undesirable effect of terrorizing the appellant into subservience, and the materials on records suggest that the Civil Surgeon constituted a medical board to examine the extent of visual impairment of the concerned candidate(s). It will bear repetition to state that the authorities under the Act are vested with the power to ensure supply of information sought for as obtaining on the records, rather than the ideal or the legal state of affairs. We are mindful of the position that the selection process to the extent relevant in the present context concerns visually impaired persons. But the Commission illegally took upon itself the task of injecting validity to the selection process. Instead of ensuring supply of factual position, he has gone to the length of directing the Director, Primary Education, to ensure action against the erring official. Such an approach is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, being an authority of limited jurisdiction.- पटना हाई कोर्ट।
  13. Version


    The Information Commission receives innumerable requests from various aggrieved parties. The Commission is a multi-member body and has to arrange its own business dealing with those appeals. Even if there has been any unreasonable delay, if a party approaches this Court, then the Commission must be put on notice before fixing a time limit for the Information Commission to hear those appeals either expeditiously or out of turn by jumping the queue. In such cases, the petitioner must make out a case for a deliberate delay dealing with those appeals and that the particular appeal of the aggrieved petitioner must be so important that in public interest such direction can be given. A writ of mandamus is issued to a public authority including a quasi-judicial authority to do a statutory obligation or to refrain from performing an act contrary to the Statute. Unless it is proved that the Commission did not discharge its obligation, no direction can be issued to the Commission by this Court and even if any such direction is to be issued, the same cannot be done without notice to the Commission. When the Government Advocate has no right to represent the Commission and only represent the Government Department and Information Offices appointed by such Department, no direction should have been issued to the Commission. Keeping this request and anguish of the Commission in mind, this Court declared that when an order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission is under challenge, Information Commission need not be made as a party to those proceedings and even if counsels make them as a party, in the array of parties, they should be struck of from the writ petition. It is also indicated that all that this Court can do is to make a copy to the Information Commission either interim or final order, so that the Commission follow the same as a legal precedent.
  14. One of the places is this: https://www.change.org/p/youth-of-india-stop-corruption If you have taken content from some other page/s, please acknowledge each one or give link. Otherwise this site will get into a copyright issue.....
  15. Yes...the main one and two smaller ones....total 3

Our Moderators

karira karira Super Moderator
ganpat1956 ganpat1956 Super Moderator
ambrish.p ambrish.p Moderators
Sunil Ahya Sunil Ahya Moderators
jps50 jps50 Moderators

About Us

RTI INDIA established in the year 2006, attracts a broad audience of citizens, experts, professionals and Government Officers interested in the latest development in the field of Right to Information. We also boast an active community focused on helping citizens to File RTI, First Appeal and Second Appeals. Our download section contains many sample RTI forms for everybody to use.

Social Links


Important Information

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