Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'disclosure'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 26 results

  1. Central Information Commission Decision No. 294/IC(A)/2006 F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00336 Dated, the 21st Sep., 2006 Name of the Appellant : Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, 25, Strand Road, 723, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001. Name of the Public Authority : The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhavan, Indraprastha marg, P.B. No.7100, New Delhi-110002. DECISION Facts: The appellant had sought certain information which are furnished by the member companies and are available with the respondent in fiduciary capacity. The CPIO has denied the information on the ground that the information sought has no relation with public action or interest. The CPIO has also mentioned that the appellant has filed a complaint against the companies whose information are being sought. He has therefore contended that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. He has thus soughtexemption u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act. Commission’s Decision: Information sought relate to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which do not fall under public domain. As such, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information sought, which is exempt u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner Download the decision from Download segment
  2. Congress president Sonia Gandhi's daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has requested the Himachal Pradesh government not to divulge her property details in the state since that can put her life in danger. Priyanka wrote to the state government following a July 2014 RTI query by activist Debashish Bhattacharya. According to the Shimla deputy commissioner, the information cannot be shared as Priyanka is an SPG protectee. Read more at: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra asks HP govt not to divulge her property details : North, News - India Today
  3. Hello, Sirji, One of applicant has submitted his grievance to the effect that his deceased father was renowned poet and on his death; he was getting contractual agreement regularly upto 2014. Now-a-days he is not getting contractual agreement for talk. He has sought RTI application stating 'PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE" INFORMATION. Does it falls under PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE? Under what section and is the information is exempted for necessary FEES to be paid? and PERIOD OF TIME LIMIT for submitting details is what? kindly guide... THANKS, TUSHAR CHOLERA
  4. The appellant had sought copies of entire police file lying with the prosecution branch of the Patiyala House Court, New Delhi. PIO denied stating that information sought appears to be part and parcel of judicial file which applicant may obtain from concerned court, so far copies of police file is concerned same can not be parted with being prohibited/restricted under the provisions of CrPC. The Commission directed the PIO of Directorate of Prosecution and PIO of concerned police department to apply doctrine of severability as provided in section 10 of the RTI Act and furnished certified copies of such information from police file. "Our all members are requested to read this decision in which learned CIC has quoted judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court". CIC_SA_A_2015_000136_M_156154.pdf

    Pro active disclosure

    If section 4 is effectively implemented and entire data, organizational information, schemes polices, benefits and list of beneficiaries are made available, the people will get really empowered and is definitely a right step towards the democratic and transparent form of governance. However, it is sad, there is no statutory consequence or penalty if the duty under section 4 is not performed or breached. This appears to be a major lacuna in the RTI Act 2005 and requires immediate attention of the law makers to empower this law to be more citizen friendly.
  6. CIC: Disclosure of information on SC benches may arouse regional feelings The CIC has ruled that disclosure of information related to meetings held in the Supreme Court regarding setting up of "benches" in different parts of the country may arouse "regional" feelings and has therefore denied the same under RTI. Full decision is attached to this post. Please also read the related news item here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/132456-information-sc-benches-may-arouse-regional-feelings.html Info on SC benches denied under RTI.pdf
  7. Only 25% of government bodies making mandatory RTI disclosures: CIC New Delhi: The Central Information Commission on Wednesday questioned government bodies with regard to meeting the requirement of mandatory suo-motu disclosures under the RTI Act and said that there was need for "introspection" as only a little over one-fourth of the 2,276 public authorities have followed statutory guidelines. AFPAFP Under Section IV of the Right to Information Act, a public authority is mandated to publish on its website 17 classes of information about its working and the records held by it so that people need not burden it with RTI applications. The annual report of the CIC, which was released on Wednesday, shows that only 667 of the 2,276 public authorities have fulfilled the mandatory requirement. "This needs introspection by Ministry/Department/Public Authorities as to the reasons why despite having good ICT infrastructure available with them, its usages for strengthening the system of mandatory disclosure norms remains unattended," the report said. The report said that the public authorities with field formations need to assess the quality, citizen friendliness, and the periodicity of dissemination of information so as to institutionalise the disclosure mechanism as mandated under Section IV of the RTI Act, 2005. "Ultimately, it is the creation of robust and dynamic citizen-government interface through sharing of information that should be talisman of our democracy," it said. Giving details of the mechanism through which the figure of 667 for the year 2013-14 had been arrived at, the report said that all public authorities have to submit their returns online in a pro-forma prescribed by the CIC. "In (block V), the Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities have to respond to a query 'Is mandatory disclosure under Section 4(1)(b) posted on the website of public authority?' If the response to the query is yes then Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have to provide detail/URL of webpage where the disclosure is posted," the report said. It said that the pro-forma also provides for other mode of dissemination if a public authority has not posted the disclosure on its website. "Only 667 Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have given response in affirmative. This means that 667 Ministry/Department/Public Authorities have posted their mandatory disclosure norms through their websites," it said. Read More: Only 25% of government bodies making mandatory RTI disclosures: CIC - Firstpost
  8. The Delhi Police RTI (Right to Information) Cell is flooded with queries regarding the expenditure incurred during US President Barack Obama’s three-day visit to the national Capital on Republic Day and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s oath-taking ceremony on February 14. More read at: Govt spending no free lunch as RTI feeds on balance sheet disclosure

    Disclosure by SC of India.

    Compliance under Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act, 2005 ********************************************************* Right To Information Act Download >> The Right To Information Act, 2005 Introduction The following officers have been appointed as Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority for Supreme Court of India under Section 5(1) and under Section 19(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 with effect from 1st February, 2007. Central Public Information Officer Mr. Ajay Agrawal Additional Registrar/ Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Tel. No.23073580/ Fax No.23384533 e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in First Appellate Authority Shri M.K. Hanjura Registrar / First Appellate Authority Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Tel. No.23385265/ Fax No.23384533 e-mail:supremecourt@nic.in Right to Information Act, 2005 This Registry for the present is following the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) which is also available on the website of the Supreme Court of India. Fee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 This Registry,with the approval of the competent authority, for the present is following the G.S.R. 336 dated 16.09.2005, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training for fee prescribed under the RTI Act. Rs.10/- either in cash or by way of Indian Postal Order or by Money Order or Demand Draft drawn in favour of Registrar/Accounts Officer, Supreme Court of India New Delhi. Note : Court fee and cheques are not acceptable as the same are not valid mode as per rules. * Ready reckoner/tips for obtaining information relating to Supreme Court. Annual Progress Report (2006-2007) Annual Progress Report (2007-2008) Annual Progress Report (2008-2009) Monthly Report (April, 2009 to March, 2010) Monthly Report (April, 2010 to March, 2011) 2011-2012 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (April, 2011 to June, 2011) - 1st Quarter Year 2011-2012 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (July, 2011 to September, 2011) - 2nd Quarter Year 2011-2012 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (October, 2011 to December, 2011) - 3rd Quarter Year 2011-2012 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (January, 2012 to March, 2012) - 4th Quarter Year 2011-2012 2012-2013 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (April, 2012 to June, 2012) - 1st Quarter Year 2012-2013 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (July, 2012 to September, 2012) - 2nd Quarter Year 2012-2013 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (October, 2012 to December, 2012) - 3rd Quarter Year 2012-2013 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (January, 2013 to March, 2013) - 4th Quarter Year 2012-2013 2013-2014 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (April, 2013 to June, 2013) - 1st Quarter Year 2013-2014 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (July, 2013 to September, 2013) - 2nd Quarter Year 2013-2014 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (October, 2013 to December, 2013) - 3rd Quarter Year 2013-2014 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (Jaunary, 2014 to March, 2014) - 4th Quarter Year 2013-2014 2014-2015 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (April, 2014 to June, 2014) - 1st Quarter Year 2014-2015 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (July, 2014 to September, 2014) - 2nd Quarter Year 2014-2015 Quarterly Return Form/REPORT (October, 2014 to Dececember, 2014) - 3rd Quarter Year 2014-2015new Compliance under Section 4(1)(b) of Right to Information Act, 2005
  10. Hello, Can disclosure of application for appointment be in public authority?
  11. Hello, Sir, I Just completed 15 day course. Please guide me what is proactive disclosure test.?
  12. RTIFED NEWS CHANDIGARH: 12 JANUARY 2012 HC INTEREFERES FOR DIRECTING HSSC TO DISCLOSE MARKS OF WRITTEN TEST OF ASSTT. SECRETARY’S EXAMINATION In a peculiar case of its own kind, a civil writ petition filed by Sukhwant Kaur of Fatehabad, seeking a direction to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to produce her answer sheet of the written test conducted for appointment to post of Assistant Secretary by the HSSC, came up for consideration before the Justice K. Kannan today. The petitioner leveled a serious allegation that the HSSC is not disclosing her marks obtained by her in written test and interview despite two applications submitted by her, in addition to another application submitted by her under the RTI Act . She alleged that the HSSC had declared the result of selection on 18 October 2011, and that the last candidate in general category had been stated to have been awarded 248 marks in aggregate, in written test and interview. She alleged that as per her private information, she scored more than 300 marks in written test alone, and was bound to be selected even if awarded zero marks in interview, and that the HSSC is deliberately delaying the supply of information to her, and is likely to destroy the answer sheets of candidates, as per its practice, on expiry of 3 months from the date of declaration of result of selection, which period is expiring on January 18th itself. Accepting the submissions made by her Counsel, H.C. Arora, Justice Kannan issued notice to the HSSC for February 10th through the State Government’s Law Officer, and directed him to seek the requisite information from HSSC on the next date of hearing. ________________________________________ – As reported by Advocate H.C. Arora, Counsel for Petitioner. He is a practicing Lawyer at Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and is President of RTIFED. DELETED EXTERNAL LINK
  13. As reported by Himanshi Dhawan in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 14 August 2010: Put projects info online, says CIC - India - The Times of India Put projects info online, says CIC NEW DELHI: With a spate of reports indicating corruption in Commonwealth Games projects and contracts, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked Delhi government and NDMC to put online information related to tenders, work awarded, consultants appointed and deadlines. Taking cognizance of "disturbing" reports about corruption in Games projects, information commissionerShailesh Gandhi wrote to the Delhi chief secretary and NDMC chairperson to put up on the website information relating to tenders, nature of work and details of appointment of consultants/NGOs with regard to implementation of Commonwealth Games projects. While Delhi government has been asked to comply by September 15, NDMC has been given a deadline of August 30. The commission asked the state government to comply under Section 4 of the RTI Act that provides for voluntary disclosure of information by a public authority. Gandhi said, "The government has paid very little attention to the requirements of Section 4 and its implementation. If details of the money being spent on CWG projects, their deadlines, the terms and conditions of contracts had been put on the website and continuously updated, the brazen purchase of things at ten or twenty times their worth may not have been possible." He added that people would have had the chance to sound an alarm or questioned authorities if anything brazen was being done. In his letter to Delhi chief secretary Rakesh Mehta, Gandhi said, "It has come to the commission's notice that a lot of information relating to tenders issued for the Commonwealth Games and other developmental work in Delhi in the last five years is not available in the public domain and disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act have not been made in this regard." He pointed out that agencies like PWD, rural development, urban development, Delhi Jal Board, DSIDC and MCD had not made certain disclosures that they should have. CWG contracts and tenders have come under the scanner with CAG and CVC closely looking at the tenders awarded by agencies like PWD, NDMC and CPWD.
  14. As reported by Himanshi Dhawan, in The Times of India, New Delhi on 14 Mar 2010 NEW DELHI: How does the government classify documents as "confidential", "secret" and "top secret"? That's "top secret" information according to the Central Information Commission (CIC), which has refused to disclose documents outlining classification procedures. The CIC's decision backs the government's plea that "individuals hostile to the nation" must not get to know the details of security strategy. The manual of departmental security instructions contains instructions and procedures and guidelines for classification of documents for the competent officers. The government thinks it unadvisable to open such documents to public scrutiny. Information commissioner Sushma Singh ruled that the manual is a "kind of code for security classification". Many say there could be merit in keeping parts of the manual out of the public domain, but it is hard to understand why the broad parameters cannot be shared. In actual fact, admit officials, the process of marking "secret" can be fairly arbitrary except for sensitive communication. This means there could be wide variations, with the bureaucracy loathe to part with information in any case. The absence of a freedom of information Act that provides for time-bound declassification has given officialdom more power. RTI applicant Venkatesh Nayak had asked for a copy of the manual including all office memoranda, circulars and standing orders relating to ''procedural matters'' connected with classification of official records. In its response, home ministry CPIO S K Malhotra said that the manual deals with ''safeguarding such information in the possession of the government, the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause damage to national security or would cause embarrassment to the government in its functioning or would be prejudicial to national security.'' Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Classification-of-documents-a-top-secret-says-CIC/articleshow/5681164.cms
  15. Dear all I am a new member and ex-staff of Nationlised bank. I request the RTI INDIA group members to guide in respect of disclosure of AUDIT reports under the RTI act. THE audit in the bank are conducted by their own staff of Audit Department and most of the time the auditor gives a good relating despite some lapses being noticed by them. the follow-up of the rectification of audit report too is weak.it is because of this collusion of audit staff with branch officials frauds in the bank are on the rise resulting in loss of public and customers money. though a case of FRAUD is reported to RBI , it consolidates the date for statistical purpose but no effort is made to recover the lost and misappropriated funds. this can be prevented to some exgent by use of RTI Act. so, kindly give your opinions or suggestions to tackle the problem of Fraud by the staff of the bank who are continuing in service of the bank without any punishment. with regards umapathi.s:rolleyes:
  16. Students still can’t access their evaluated answer-sheets but they are getting close. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education to give a Delhi student, question-wise marks awarded to her in the Class X science and technology paper in 2005. The CBSE – that has been strongly opposed to showing students their evaluated answer-sheets – had responded in this case that there were no provisions in the examination byelaws of the board to show the answer-script to candidates. An internal appeal moved on behalf of the student, Aditi Gupta, against this response was also turned down; the CBSE took cover under an exemption clause in the Right to Information clause that bars information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. Incidentally, the CIC had first cited this exemption clause to turn down an RTI request in February. The order had been severely criticised by RTI activists including Magsaysay award-winner Arvind Kejriwal who argued that the commission had misinterpreted this provision. In subsequent cases, the commission, however, agreed to take a relook and refer this issue to a Full Bench of the Commission to take final call. In a brief order this week, Information Commissioner Dr OP Kejariwal kept the request for inspection of the answer-sheet pending in view of the constitution of the Full Bench but ordered CBSE to "disclose the question-wise marks obtained" by Aditi Gupta in the Class X examination 2005 within a fortnight. The commission had earlier ruled in favour of letting students see the answer-keys, the document that guides evaluators on marks to be awarded for various parts of a question. The CBSE has the option of moving the High Court against the CIC decision; the public examination body, Union Public Service Commission had approached the court in October, 2006 to stay operation of a CIC directive on disclosure of cut-off marks and individual marks of candidates who took the Civil Services examination. The court had granted the stay on the UPSC plea that disclosure of this information would undermine the entire examination procedure. (Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Dec.23,2006)
  17. In a recent order, the CIC hs ruled that any RTI Rules cannot be in direct conflict with the main RTI Act. Applicant asked for the following information from the Delhi High Court: 1. “Who are the class III and class IV employees recruited / employed by the High Court from 1990 to date? 2. Were any advertisements issued for the recruitment of these persons mentioned in Q. 2? 3. Whether any tests / interviews / selections were conducted for these persons mentioned in Q. 2? Period for which information asked for: 1990 to Sept. 2006.” Delhi High Court denied the information citing the following RTI rules formulated by the Delhi High Court: “Rule 4(iv). In so far as decisions which are taken administratively or quasi judicially, information therefore, shall be available only to the affected persons1. 5. Exemption from disclosure of information. The information specified under Section 8 of the Act shall not be disclosed and made available and in particular the following information shall not be disclosed. a. Such information which is not in the public domain or does not relate to judicial functions and duties of the Court and matters incidental and ancillary thereto. First appeal was rejected and applicant approached the CIC with Second Appeal under Sec 19(3). Appellant argued that: a) The rules framed by the Delhi High Court are inconsistent with the RTI Act 2005 and therefore contravene Sec 22 of the RTI Act: Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. b) Under Sec 6(1) applicant is not supposed to give any reason for seeking information c) Information can only be denied only under exemptions listed in Sec 8 or 9 d) Therefore RTI Rules framed by the High Court are ultravires of the Act e) Only CIC has the powers under the RTI Act to decide whether information can be disclosed or not Delhi High Court responded: a) The High Court was a constitutional authority while CIC was a statutory authority b) The Chief Justice of the High Court was a competent authority as defined in Sec 2(e)(iii) and therefore empowered to frame rules under the RTI Act ORDER In its order, CIC invoked Sec 19(8)(a) and Sec 25(5) of the RTI Act and ruled that: It is, therefore, clear that rule 4(iv) and 5(a) are inconsistent with the RTI Act and, therefore, the provisions of this Act shall have effect not withstanding the content of the inconsistent rules. and further ordered: 1) The Registrar Delhi High Court will take such steps as may be necessary to provide access to the information sought under sec. 19(a)(i) to appellant Ms Jaiswal in the form in which it had been sought. This will be done within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice 2) We find u/s 25(5) of the RI Act, 2005 that the practice of the High Court in relation to providing access to information under this Act in terms of sec. 4(iv) and sec. 5(a) of the Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules does not conform expressly with the provisions of the Act. It is recommended to the Delhi High Court, therefore, that such steps may be taken to amend these rules as would make them consistent with the sec. 6 and sec. 7 of the RTI Act. Full decision is attached to this post. WB-23092008-02.pdf
  18. As reported by Shalini Nair in expressindia.com on 25 May 2008: BMC yet to open up, despite Disclosure Act - ExpressIndia.Com BMC yet to open up, despite Disclosure Act Mumbai, May 24 Among other things, PDA requires municipal corporations to reveal audited financial statements showing the balance sheet, receipts and expenditure every quarter; also, spending on providing major services and details of major works It was supposed to be a step above the Right to Information Act as it requires urban local bodies to voluntarily disclose information about their performance from time to time. But the city’s municipal corporation is way behind the March 31 deadline for implementing the Public Disclosure Act, a mandatory reform to be eligible for project funds under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). The Act had been hailed as one of the most important reforms that would ensure better governance and accountability. The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils (Second Amendment) Act 2007, popularly known as the Public Disclosure Act (PDA), came into force on 26th December 2007. Among other things, it requires municipal corporations to reveal their audited financial statements showing the balance sheet, receipts and expenditure every quarter. It also makes it compulsory for civic bodies to reveal the expenditure incurred on providing major services and details of major works, time of completion and disbursement made, among other things. The information has to be updated periodically and opened up for public scrutiny through the media or the BMC website. Deputy Municipal Commissioner P K Charankar said the BMC had so far completed 70 per cent of the reforms mandated under the JNNURM. As for the PDA, he said that he did not have much information, “As far as the budget goes, we have disclosed our expenditure for 2006-07. The expenditure for 2007-08 will take some more time.” According to Chief Accountant (Finance) Ram Dhas, the delay is partially due to the problem with the SAP system implementation. “Also, we received the copy of the Act from the state government only recently. The Act will be implemented within a fortnight. There are 13 items that have to be disclosed. Most of its is already ready.” The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) got its act together following a letter by local RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who pointed out the need to implement the PDA at the earliest. “Recently, I received a letter from the PMC telling me that all their records are in place and I could inspect them whenever I want,” said Kumbhar, adding that it is one of the major obligations under JNNURM conditions. The PDA would help citizens monitor each and every work in their local area, he said, adding that “for instance, in case of a road work, documents on the exact estimates, plans, money disbursed will be available for instant public scrutiny anytime.” RTI activist Kewal Semlani terms the BMC’s failure to implement the act as “complete laxity” on its part. “Look at how proactive the PMC has been,” he said. Semlani said that in case BMC does not put up the information in the public domain by the month end, RTI activists have decided that they would take up the matter with the Union Urban Development ministry as well as the World Bank. “This would lead to a stay in releasing BMC’s next installment of funds. Presently, the RTI Act also requires suo motu disclosure of all the above information, however with the PDA there is a fear of penal action and hence it is more effective,” said Semlani.
  19. As in section 4 of RTI Act 2005 it is written that every public authority must disclsoe the informations with 120 days. The PIO BSNL Jaipur having intention that the disclosure only required for CPIO level not on the level of PIO or APIO. Any one may send me views that proactive disclosure at the level of PIO or APIO is not necessary.
  20. As reported by Express News Service on 13th January 2008 on: IndianExpress.com :: Disclosure of details can’t be withheld after awarding contract, says CIC Disclosure of details can’t be withheld after awarding contract, says CIC New Delhi, January 13: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that information pertaining to contractual proceeding — held by a public authority — cannot be withheld from disclosure once the contract is concluded. Information Commissioner A N Tiwari said that while confidentiality needs to be necessarily maintained about bids, before contract is finally awarded, there is absolutely no reason why after the award of the contract, confidentiality should be still maintained regarding the names of the bidders and quotation-details. “In fact, all contracts entered into by public authorities, are bound to be open contracts. To draw an inference that this information should not be disclosed because it was in some way commercial confidence or personal information, which is barred from disclosure, will amount to erroneous interpretation of the provisions of law. A claim of confidentiality of such contract by a public authority is an indefensible claim. If allowed, it would mean that all contracts given out by public authorities shall not be open to scrutiny under the RTI Act. That position, if allowed to persist, would defeat the purpose of the Act,” he observed. The Commission’s order came on the appeal of Ravindra Chunilal Kalal of Pune who had sought from United India Insurance Company Limited certain information related to the auction of damaged vehicles by the company. He wanted to know the name of the successful bidders, who had purchased salvaged or damaged passenger cars, along with description of vehicles, type of vehicles, engine numbers and chassis numbers of such vehicles.
  21. CIC exempts medical tests from disclosure New Delhi, October 30: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that information on a medical test or diagnostic procedure is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act as it amounts to invasion of privacy and breach of trust. Upholding the decision of the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) in not revealing the details of DNA test done on a person, who did not make the request for such a test, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said such information can only be supplied by the party concerned directly and not by the institution or confidant who holds the information in trust. The Commission’s order came on the appeal of Arjesh Kumar Madhok of Jhansi, who made an application under the RTI Act to the CDFD Hyderabad, seeking information regarding a DNA test allegedly done in respect of his son, who was in his wife’s custody. He also wanted to know the name of the doctor who referred of the test and the purpose for conducting such a test. The CDFD declined to provide information on the grounds that the tests were not conducted at his request and the CDFD is required to maintain the confidentiality of the tests and the same can be disclosed only to those individuals and organisations which have approached for such tests. Further, the information sought was of a personal nature, which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act . The CIC said that information concerning results of DNA test or any medical report cannot be revealed to a party other than the one who has obtained them as it is protected by a relationship of trust. “The relationship between a doctor and patient or a lawyer and client falls squarely within the definition of fiduciary relations. The RTI Act itself provides that the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship is protected from disclosure. The disclosure of diagnostic information can only be supplied by the party concerned directly and not by the confidante, in this case the CDFD,” the order said. IndianExpress.com :: CIC exempts medical tests from disclosure
  22. ganpat1956

    SIC seeks proactive disclosure

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The State Information Commission (SIC) has urged the government to instruct public authorities, as defined under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, to go in for proactive disclosure of information relating to them. In its annual report to the government, the commission points out that even though proactive disclosure is mandatory under the Act, many public authorities are not doing so. Such disclosure, the commission feels, would reduce the number of requests for information. Keeping in view the cost and time elements involved in publishing and updating information through the print media, it is advisable to immediately publish the information on the official web sites of the government and the organisations concerned. Organisations can be encouraged to develop their own web sites and provide information through them. Funds available under e-governance may be profitably utilised for the purpose, the report says. Call to publish lists The commission also recommends publication of lists of public authorities under each administrative department in order to remove any ambiguity in the matter. Under the RTI Act, public authorities include institutions and non-governmental organisations which are controlled or are substantially financed by the government. However, some institutions such as cooperative banks, aided schools and colleges, management of religious institutions and places of worship, libraries, etc., which are either controlled or are substantially financed by the government, are under the impression that the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to them, the commission says. It reminds the government that though many public authorities have designated assistant public information officers, public information officers and appellate authorities, some are yet to do so. This is especially so in the case of non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the government such as private aided colleges and schools and cooperatives. The commission recommends designation of more than one public information officer in major offices such as corporations and municipalities, Directorate of Health Services, Directorate of Education, Directorate of Public Instruction, Police Department, etc. to receive and dispose of requests under the RTI Act. The commission also asks the Government to strengthen the General Administration Department. The Hindu : Front Page : SIC seeks proactive disclosure
  23. The CIC has allowed partial disclosure of correspondence and notings of files pertaining to the recall of Harish K Dogra, erstwhile High Commissioner of India to New Zealand. Information Commissioner O P Kejariwal, after going through the relevant files, said some of the documents can be disclosed whereas the documents which have been received in confidence from the foreign Government are protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act. Appellant S K Sahijpal made an application to the Ministry of External Affairs for disclosure of copies of the correspondence and notings related to Dogra's recall. The MEA refused to provide the information, taking recourse to Section 8(1)(a) and (f) of the RTI Act saying that such information is protected from disclosure as it may affect the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the country and relations with foreign states, and that the information has been received in confidence from a foreign government. On appeal against the denial of information, the CIC directed the MEA to show to it the concerned documents and explain how the case is covered under the two Sections. After perusal of files, the CIC decided some of the documents may be disclosed while others are protected and cannot be disclosed. The Commission has observed that since the disclosure pertains only to Dogra, the documents cannot be disclosed to his advocate Sahijpal. Indian Express news at : CIC allows partial disclosure of Dogra files - Yahoo! India News
  24. The Apex court has observed that "disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of the government must be the rule, and secrecy, an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands "
  25. New Delhi, Mar 13: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a fine of Rs 15,500 on a senior officer in the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) for a delayed information disclosure on an RTI application seeking details about the relief and rehabilitation for the oustees of the Narmada dam project. The fine was imposed on P Padmanabhan, Director in Central Water Commission, who in November 2006, serving as Senior Joint Commissioner and Central Public Information Officer in the Ministry, had delayed in responding to the application. "The answer now given (in response to the CIC complaint) should have been the answer given at the time of submission of the (original) application," Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said in the order passed yesterday. The applicant Rahul Mangaonkar, a resident of Ahmedabad, had made an application before the Prime Minister's Office seeking information on the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs decision to review the raising of height of Narmada dam. The Ministry of Water Resources had declined to disclose any information on the issue of the height of the dam but on the another issue of whether Medha Patkar-led NBA had given any list about the oustees not yet rehabiliated satisfactorily, it had said "no such information is avilable with the Ministry". Mangaonkar, who was aggrieved by the response of the Ministry, had approached the CIC with a complaint that the information provide to him was not sufficient and details be given to him. Acting on his plea, the CIC agreed with the plea of the applicant that the Ministry was not providing the information satisfactorily and issued show cause notice to the CPIO as to why he should not be penalised. "It was not adequate for the Ministry, which is the administrative Ministry in the GOI on the Narmada project, to so wash its hands of information on the principal subject, the importance of which to the execution of the project can hardly be denied," the CIC said. Padmanabhan, who responded to the show cause notice, had clarified that despite the efforts made by MoWR, Medha Patkar's NBA did not provide any state-wise list of the affected families in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Senior official fined Rs 15,500 for delayed RTI disclosure .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel
  • Create New...

Important Information

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