Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'come'.
Found 4 results
baburaok posted a topic in Discussions on RTIHello, I have filed an application with CPIO, CSIR for information and I get a reply that the information as sought by you does not fall under the definition of information as provided under section 2(f) of the act. It says "Further CIC in its order dated 21.4.2006 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 in the case of Dr. D V Rao Vs APIO, Deptt. of legal Affairs, New Delhi has clearly held that the RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority any obligation to answer the query. Therefore, when the applicatant under RTI attempts to elicit answer to his question with prefix such as why, what, when and whether, the Authority is not obliged to give reply to such query." I would like to know from the experienced members of the forum whether the following query can be rejected under the above claim by the CPIO, that too under the false pretext that no policy for safety exists while in fact it does have one but not being implemented. PIO, CSIR in response to an earlier application responded thus: â€œ.. no such instructions/document named as â€˜Safety Policyâ€™ has been issued by CSIR Headquarters, hence document/information in this regard is not available in CSIR Headquarters.â€ [Lr. No. 46-2(306)/2006-RTI]. Is there any document that deals with responsibilities towards safety of employees in CSIR whatever the name of the document? If so provide a copy. Can CSIR deny the right to life guaranteed under the constitution of
[This is a case of "right to privacy vs right to know"--Ganpat] In a path-breaking order on the Right to Information (RTI), the State Information Commission asked the Public Information Officer (PIO) of JJ Hospital to give all medical reports, including ECG pertaining to his hospitalisation, along those made at the time of discharge within seven days. The appeal was filed by city activist Shailesh Gandhi seeking medical records of former state forest minister Surupsinh Naik. The order held that larger public interest would be served by disclosure of information rather than creating doubts in the public mind. The full Bench consisting of Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, Vilas Patil (Nagpur), Vilas Borge (Aurangabad) and VV Kuwalekar (Pune) argued that the case had contradictory points - right to privacy vis-Ã -vis right to know, which need to be weighed to arrive at the decision. â€œPeople feel that those in high places or have money power when imprisoned get shifted to hospitals under one pretext or the other and spend their jail term in the hospitals. However, there could be genuine requirement also for the imprisoned person for specialised medical supervisionâ€, reads the order. The Bench said disclosure of such information would remove the veil of secrecy and let people know the actual position and would do justice to everyone - jail and medical authorities. Incidentally, Naik failed to respond when the JJ Hospital authorities asked for his consent to disclose his medical records. The Bench took the legal support of section 8 (j) of the RTI Act, provisions of which contemplates that the information which could be revealed to State Legislature, cannot be denied to the public. When the PIO of the hospital admitted that the pertaining information could be denied to the Legislature, the Bench held that it would be unjustified to deny the same to the activist. Responding to the order, Pravin Shingare, dean, JJ Hospital said, â€œI have not received any court order so far. Once I receive it, I will read it and act accordingly.â€ Explaining the hospitalâ€™s stand on the issue, he said, â€œEarlier, I told the commission that unless the patient gives his consent or permission to reveal his personal medical records, we cannot do the same. If a patientâ€™s medical data is asked by a stranger, we cannot give the details as it is classified information,â€ said Shingare. After a nine-month fight, Shailesh was happy to get a positive reply though he questioned the earlier stand of the JJ dean giving reasons for rejecting the information, which had to be given by the PIO. â€œIâ€™m against making personal medical records of people made public. But this case was about a convict, spending his jail term in hospital and thus involves larger public interest,â€ said the activist. Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi admitted that the complex and sensitive nature was main reason for the delay in issuing the order. â€œWe believe that the records coming in the public domain would do good for everyone, including Naik.â€ DNA - Mumbai - JJ told to come clean on Surupsinh - Daily News & Analysis
Shrawan posted a topic in RTI in MediaState commission cracks down on information officers who delay providing information to citizens The state information commissioner recently levied a fine of Rs9,750, to be recovered from the salary of SP Sangane, divisional joint registrar, co-operative housing societies, for delaying information sought under the RTI. Tarun Ghia, a Mumbai resident, had demanded copies of the orders of appointment of chartered accountants and certified auditors to audit co-operative housing societies, on January 23, 2006. Ghia was provided the required information on April 20 â€” 84 days after the application. Under the Act, only 30 days to provide information is permissible and another 15 days to intimate the applicant about photocopying charges. But even after counting those days, there was still a delay of 39 days. Ghia then filed a complaint and, in the hearing before the state information commissioner, Sangane cited administrative reasons such as the ongoing assembly session, large number of appeals, urgent notices and the chief officer going on sick leave as causes of delay. State Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, however, said the reasons did not justify a 39-day delay. In another case, Gaurang Vora sought information regarding MMRDA projects that required trees to be chopped or replanted, through the RTI Act. The information was delayed by 29 days. SR Nandargikar, superintendent engineer and engineering and information officer, MMRDA was fined Rs7,250 (Rs 250 per day of delay). â€œIâ€™m quite satisfied with the action that the commissioner has taken but the need of the hour is 10 chief information commissioners in the state,â€ Vora said. Suresh Joshi, chief information commissioner, Maharashtra, said: â€œWe look at the gravity of the case and then impose a fine or order departmental proceedings. If itâ€™s a tehsildar in Gadchiroli, who has very little administrative exposure, then we are lenient and may issue a warning but if itâ€™s a corporator in Pune or Mumbai, who is well aware of administrative responsibilities, we take stricter action.â€