Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'exemption'.

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 41 results

  1. Kindly do not worry about the exemptions at the stage of filing a RTI application, as reasoned below: As per section 7(1): A PIO is supposed to either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9 (Which means a PIO is supposed to either provide information or deny it under section 8 and 9). As per section 19(5): In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the PIO who denied the request. (Which means that if a PIO denies the information then he is required to justify his denial) And furthermore as per section 6(2): An applicant making 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. (Which means that an applicant is not required to give reasons for requesting the information) Therefore given the provisions of section 7(1) read with section 19(5) and further read with section 6(2): The onus i.e. the burden of proof, for either providing or not providing the information is on the PIO who approves or declines a request for information, and, The onus is not on any RTI applicant to justify or give reasons for having sought an information, irrespective of whether such information is disclosable or exempt under RTI Act. Thus, for the above given reasons, you as a RTI applicant need not worry about exemptions, at the stage of filing a RTI application itself. Kindly go ahead, file a RTI application and seek all the information that you may require, let the PIO decide as to whether the information is disclosable or exempt under RTI Act and reply accordingly, study the PIO's reply and if you are not satisfied with the PIO's response, you are always at the liberty to file a first appeal against a PIO's such a decision, and likewise if you are not satisfied with the decision of your first appeal, then a second appeal before an Information Commission. Also refer to the following links: RTI Act offers three levels to obtain a required information. Flow of a RTI application, once having been filed. Time limits under which I will get the information. Centre / State RTI Rules - A Guide.
  2. In a recent order CIC has asked to compensate the Complainant Rs. 153 - towards expenses incurred by him in sending letters to CBI and filing the Complaint. CIC also remanded the RTI application back to the CPIO to provide "information" as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. CBI Compensation.pdf

    enjoying exemption u/s 80G

    IF charitable trust /organization enjoying exemption u/s 80G (INCOME TAX) they ambit under RTI ?
  4. TrinkleK

    Exemption from toll

    Hello, I live at Lodha Aqua, which is approximately at a distance of 1 km from the Dahisar check naka. Does this entitle us to toll exemption?
  5. I filed RTI at KERALA UNIVERSITY with valid attested copy of BPL certificate and Aadhaar card and got rejected. Although it was marked as ' For Scholarship Only ' on BPL certificate it was not a problem for other places I applied. is there any other BPL certificate for RTI ..??
  6. NEW DELHI: The home ministry is set to reject the demand of intelligence agencies for a "blanket" exemption from the purview of the Right to Privacy Bill and endorse the existing rider that requires them to intrude one's privacy only in the interest of "sovereignty, integrity and security of India". Read at: Home Ministry set to junk intelligence's plea for exemption from RTI - The Economic Times
  7. Reported by Aman Sharma in Economictimes.indiatimes.com on 17 Mar, 2015 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/intelligence-agencies-demand-blanket-exemption-from-right-to-privacy-bill/articleshow/46590122.cms Intelligence agencies have demanded a "blanket exemption" from the ambit of the Right to Privacy Bill, 2014, the legislation under the anvil after the Niira Radia episode. The proposed law will impose heavy costs and punishment for intrusion into a citizen's privacy or leakage of personal details. The draft bill exempts security and intelligence agencies from the bill's ambit if the agencies can prove that their actions of compromising a citizen's privacy were in national interest. However, ET has learnt that the Home Ministry has informed the Department of Personnel and Training piloting the bill that Intelligence agencies are not satisfied with the rider. "The Home Ministry has said that establishing in each case, that an action of the agencies was in the interest of integrity, security and sovereignty of the country is not only practically difficult but will lead to litigation. The Home Ministry hence wants blanket exemption for the agencies from the bill," a senior DoPT official told ET. Section 65 of the Draft Right to Privacy Bill exempts action of intelligence and law enforcement agencies from investigative and adjudicative powers of a proposed Data Protection Authority but subjects such action to scrutiny of a court. Section 64 provides for initiating civil proceedings against any person, including an intelligence agency. The DoPT official said the Home Ministry says these provisions could mean intelligence agencies would be saddled with responsibility of defending themselves against all sorts of litigation and investigation. "The Home Ministry has said this will expose the methods, capabilities and sources of intelligence agencies and will have a detrimental effect on the agency's functioning," the DoPT official said. Further, the Home Ministry also has an issue with Section 56 of the draft act which imposes a penalty for obtaining personal data on a false pretext - it wants intelligence agencies and all law enforcement agencies to be exempt from this as well, the DoPT official added. It has also been mentioned by the Home Ministry that the provisions of the bill should apply only to Indian citizens and not all residents of India, implying that foreigners staying here temporarily can be put under surveillance freely for the purpose of national security. The Right to Privacy Bill is being drafted after leading industrialist Ratan Tata approached the Supreme Court after leakage of the Niira Radia tapes, saying his privacy had been compromised by the leaks.
  8. News published in Navhind Times on 16.02.2015 as below. CBI misconstrues RTI Act on exemption clause. New Delhi: In an apparent misinterpretation of the RTI Act, CBI has claimed before the Delhi High Court that it can only share information pertaining to allegations of corruption against its own officials and not the graft cases probed by it. The explanation not only goes against the preamble of the Act, which says that an informed citizenry is vital to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable, but also contravenes Section 24 of RTI Act under which CBI has been included in the list of exempted organisations by the previous UPA government, which was facing serious corruption charges probed by the agency. Recently, CBI has even started returning RTI applications citing the exemption clause despite clear orders from the CIC and its former director, A P Singh. Section 24 says that nothing in the Act will apply to exempted organisations provided the “information” sought by an application pertaining to allegations of corruption is not excluded under it. The definition of “information” says it is “any material in any form held by or under the control” of a public authority and, as per the definition; it may not necessarily be about the organisation from which the information was sought. The agency, while challenging the order of Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra through a writ petition before Delhi High Court, apparently misconstrued the clause which exempts it from the RTI Act by only highlighting the portion of it which goes in its favour. Experts are of the view that the Right to Information Act is not about records of an organisation or its employees. The Act is about any information which is “held by or under the control” of a public authority. “A citizen can demand the information (any material in any form held by or under the control of a public authority) from CBI if it pertains to allegations of corruption. The claim that it will give information only where allegations are against its employees is a complete abuse of the law,” said noted activist Venkatesh Nayak. Former Chief Information Commissioner AN Tiwari, whose order in a case has been cited by CBI in the writ petition to buttress its argument, said that the interpretation given by the agency is completely incorrect. “If an applicant wants information related to an allegation of corruption, whether in general or about employees of the organisation, it should be judged on the basis of the RTI Act as such information is not exempted even in the case of organisations which are otherwise exempt,” Tiwari said. The former CIC said that the RTI Act is all about accessing information which is held by or under the control of a public authority and it need not necessarily be about that organisation. The Act is absolutely clear and the twist given by the agency is flawed and against the law, he said. Tiwari further said that CBI is like any other police organisation and should not have been included in the list of exempted organisations at all. “Somebody should implead in the case and challenge the inclusion of CBI in the list of exempted organisations,” he said.
  9. Hello, I am handicap person travelling by my car I want information Toll Exemption for disable person in Mumbai is eligible or not.
  10. NEW DELHI: Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee has written to lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung asking him to exempt Sikh women from wearing helmets. To claim the exemption, they cited an RTI reply from Delhi Police as proof showing that no Sikh woman had died in a motorbike accident last year. Avtar Singh Sethi, president of Delhi Sikh Citizen's Council said that he had filed the RTI to the office of special commissioner (traffic), Taj Hassan. Traffic cops then asked them toapproach the district police who replied that no data of a Sikh woman being killed in a fatal accident was received by them. The groups also wrote to the LG asking him to exempt Sikh women from wearing helmets since it would be hurting their religious sentiments. Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Gurdwara-body-opposes-helmet-rule-for-women/articleshow/35965581.cms
  11. Reported by By Chaitanya Swamy H M in Bangaloremirror.com on Dec 6, 2013 CID protected from hampering RTIs - Bangalore Mirror CID protected from hampering RTIs Investigation details of CID sleuths in several sensational cases like Swami Nithyananda, PUC question paper racket, KPSC job for sale racket and Sowjanya murder case were made public through RTI. The revelations, while creating controversies, had also diluted the investigation process. Applying brakes on revealing investigation details under Right to Information Act, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has obtained an exemption from the government under RTI act and is now immune to the flood of RTI applications seeking investigation details of various cases. A couple of months ago, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) issued an official notification exempting the CID from the ambit of RTI. According to the notification, a copy of which is with Bangalore Mirror, the CID has been added to list of institutes and organizations that have are exempt from giving information under RTI. "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (4) of section 24 of the RTI Act 2005 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the government of Karnataka hereby proposes to make amendment to the notification no DPAR 44 RTI 2004 dated 5 December 2005 and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in police department (investigation and intelligence report) be inserted," the notification said. Acknowledging the exemption, Director General of Police, CID, Bipin Gopalakrishna said: "We (CID) had sent a proposal to the government requesting to keep the matters investigated by CID confidential and not be divulged under the Right to Information Act. Examining our proposal, the government has got convinced and passed an order in this regard." However, the investigation of information relating to cases of corruption and human rights violation are not exempted under RTI and still can be availed under the RTI act. "Other than corruption and human rights violation cases, all cases will now be investigated with confidentiality at every step. The investigation reports and chargesheets have to be submitted directly to the court and we are not supposed to share such information under RTI," Gopalakrishna said. Another senior police officer attached with CID wing of the state police explained further: "Information related to economic offences, intelligence reports, inquiry reports of burglary, murders, homicide reports, counterfeit currency cases and illegal arms and explosive related cases will not be shared under RTI." It could be recalled that investigation details in several high profile cases were revealed to public and media through RTI which either diluted the investigation or retarded the pace of the investigation. In couple of high profile cases, injunction was issued for publishing or telecasting investigation and interrogation details of the crime and accused. Details about sensitive cases had lead to high pitched debates about the sanctity of investigations by CID sleuths.
  12. Some of my friend keep getting the reply that the information he had asked for does not come under RTI Act, as it as not asked in he form available. I do not understand this, is there any provision for that in RTI?
  13. I read it here that CBI is exempted from RTI. How correct is that ? CBI exempted from RTI Act - Times Of India CBI website has an RTI section as on date and shows the names of CPIOs etc also. Can someone explain what is the present situation ? Thanks in advance.
  14. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067 F.No.PBA/06/163 September 25, 2006 Appeal No. 115 /ICPB/2006 In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19. Appellant: Shri. H.K. Bansal Public authority: Ministry of Communication & IT, Shri H.C. Jayal, Joint Secretary & CPIO, Shri. Yaswant S. Bhave, Spl. Secretary & Appellate Authority. FACTS: The appellant in this matter has sought information from the CPIO relating to the regularization in the post of Supdt. Engineer (Civil) and adhoc promotion to the grade of CE©. Having not satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred his first appeal dated 26.5.06 to the appellate authority which supplied all the information vide its letter dated 10.8.2006. Having still not satisfied with the information supplied, the appellant has filed his second appeal before the Commission on 11.7.06. Comments were called for wherein it is stated that in the information furnished by the CPIO and the appellate authority, all information sought for by the appellant has been furnished except the minutes of the meeting held in UPSC. In the rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the minutes of the meeting in UPSC cannot be withheld. DECISION: I have perused the application and also the information furnished by CPIO and the appellant authority. On receipt of CPIO’s reply, in his appeal, the appellant had elaborately dealt with the deficiency in the reply furnished by CPIO. The appellate authority has dealt with each and every point raised by the appellant and wherever there was a deficiency, correct information has been furnished to the appellant. The only information which was not furnished relates to the DPC minutes and connected files. . As far as the DPC minutes are concerned, in Shri Gopal Kumar V Army HQ ( Appeal No CIC/AT/A/2006/0009 dated 13/7/2006, a Division Bench of this Commission has held “Departmental Promotion committees prepare their minutes after examining ACRs of employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of the DPC and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to the disclosure of ACRs. Since ACRs themselves according to us are barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings should be similarly barred”. The same decision applies in the present case also and therefore, both the CPIO and the AA have rightly declined to disclose the documents connected with the DPC. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO. Sd/- (Padma Balasubramanian) Information Commissioner
  15. sunil sri

    using of letter head

    dear all, recently i asked information on the letter head of a simity but the same was denied on the following grounds: not a natural citizen ; letter head cannot be used. However, i came to know that cic in its judgement has permitted the companies to seek information by using letter head. let me know, whether i can appeal by using the recent judgement. also please provide me the judgement.
  16. This article appeared here: RTI: Not applicable to I-T proceedings? I thought it worth sharing and covers very important issues. Can information concerning I-T department be asked under the RTI Act? This issue can be examined from the following angles: (a) Applicability of section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(e) (supra) In the context of income-tax proceedings, considerable information is furnished by the taxpayers to the Income Tax department's officers. These give a picture of the taxpayers regarding the nature and scale of activities, financial position, details about the persons having dealings with them, bank accounts, creditors, debtors, competitors, nature of material and processes used for the products made, the sources of supplies and rates thereof, expansion activities and host of other information. All these are given in great confidence and in trust in the context of discharge of income-tax obligations. The I-T department receives it in a fiduciary capacity. Making these public would be ruinous to the persons furnishing such particulars. Disclosure of secrets relating to processes employed, manufacturing activities, sources of procurement of raw material and other supplies, rates, discounts given, etc, would certainly harm competitive position of the persons concerned and third parties dealing with them. Further, no public interest - what to talk of larger public interest - would be served by disclosure of such information. Rather, doing so, may affect the public interest adversely, inhibiting the taxpayers to make true, full and voluntary disclosures of income and wealth and other particulars in compliance to tax laws. Hence, exemption provided by sections 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(e) (supra) would apply in the matter of disclosure of information relating to income-tax proceedings. (b) Applicability of non-obstante clause [section 22 of the RTI Act] Section 138 of the I-T Act relates to furnishing of the information under the I-T Act received or obtained by Income-tax authorities in the performance of their duties. The section mentions about the situations, where information can be furnished relating to Income-tax proceedings namely: (i) To officers/authorities, performing functions under any other law, imposing tax, duty or cess or dealing in foreign exchange or as may be specified by the central government in public interest. (ii) The chief commissioner or commissioner may furnish or cause to be furnished any information asked for (relating to any assessee in respect of any assessment under the Act) provided (a) an application is made in the prescribed form, and (b) the chief commissioner or commissioner is satisfied that it is in public interest so to do [section 138(1)(b)]. (iii) The central government can direct, by notification in the official gazette, that no information or document shall be furnished or produced (a) in respect of such matters relating to any specific class of assesses, and (b) except to the authorities specified in the notification, having regard to practices and usages customary or any other relevant factors [section 138(2)]. A non-obstante clause is a legislative device, which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or in some other enactment. The non-obstante clause in the RTI Act [section 22 (supra)] is worded on similar lines and covers situations, which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and will not cover provisions in other enactments, which are analogous to the RTI Act. If the I-T Act also has a clause, which provides for giving information regarding taxpayers, like the RTI Act, providing for information in regard to various matters, then non-obstante clause of Act will not apply to I-T Act, whose provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions in the I-T Act. Hence, if the information in regard to taxpayers is required, recourse will have to be taken to section 138 of the I-T Act and not the RTI Act. Specific vs general provision Section 138 in the I-T Act, 1961 is a special provision while the RTI Act is a general enactment, giving right to obtain information "under the control of public authorities". The rule is 'specilibus non-derogant'. This general maxim provides that general things will not derogate from special things. The hypothesis is that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment and the latter taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative. In Girdhari Lal Nannelal v CIT (1984) 147 ITR 529 (MP-FB), the view expressed is that any matter, for which a provision is made in the I-T Act, is to be governed by it notwithstanding anything different or to the contrary contained in the general law relating to that matter. Hence, for this reason also, the RTI Act is not applicable to the income-tax proceedings in the matter of getting information. Summing up The RTI Act will have no application in respect of Income-tax proceedings for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore. Shri. TN PANDEY, The author is former chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes
  17. p.esakkimuthu

    Sec 8(1)(a)(e) RTI ACt

    The RBI declined to furnish information on the fraud committed in a bank which was detected by the RBI Inspection.The RBI declined to furnish information citing the Sec 8(1)(a)(e). Give some decisions of CIC in this connection
  18. Central Information Commission Decision No.300/IC(A)/2006 F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2006/00436 CIC/MA/A/2006/00488 Dated, the 22nd September, 2006 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Hemant Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s Alpha Exports, 419/B, Panchratna, Opera House,Mumbai – 400 004. Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-7(CIT), Room No.611, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020. DECISION The appellant sought the following information from the CPIO of the CIT:“the certified copy of the income tax returns, Balance Sheets alongwith annexures and Assessment Orders for financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and information,in respect of M/s White Diamond Industries Limited having its PAN No.AAACW0337R, ward No.Adl/JCIT Rg.7(3).” The CPIO denied to furnish the information on the ground that information sought relate to third party and also there is no public interest involved in disclosure of the information. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. In an umpteen number of cases, the Commission has observed that I.T and property returns filed by persons are personal information of third parties and therefore these should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Likewise, income tax assessment orders, though an outcome of public action, contain both personal details of assessees as well as commercial confidence nature of information. Hence, these documents should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Prof. M.M. Ansari) Information Commissioner
  19. As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 31 March 2008 CHENNAi: The Madras high court has upheld the state government's order exempting the state vigilance commission and the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC) from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A division bench, comprising Chief Justice H L Gokhale and Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla, dismissed a writ petition from P Pugazhendi, an advocate, seeking the quashing of an order dated August 26, 2008. by which the government invoked its powers under Sec 24(4) of the RTI to declare that the law shall not apply to the state vigilance commission and DVAC. Several activists working for the right to information had questioned the government's move when the order was passed, wondering what was the need for the government to remove these organisations dealing with corruption among public servants to be exempted from the RTI. The petitioner had raised several grounds to assail the exemption granted to the vigilance bodies from the law's purview. He had pointed out that the CBI had not been kept out of the RTI even though it was also dealing with corruption cases pertaining to public servants under the Central government. He also argued that the state government's exercise of its power to exempt the DVAC amounted to destroying the ideal of transparency in public administration. However, the bench rejected these arguments. Referring to the point about the CBI, the court said the sub-sections of the Act concerning the central and state governments' power to exempt organisations involved in intelligence and security were separate provisions, and there was no need for one to be mixed up with the other. On the point about erosion of transparency, the bench noted that the preamble to the legislation permitted "preservation of confidentiality" about sensitive information. The bench noted that the order had itself mentioned that these organisations primarily dealt with investigation into alleged corrupt activities of public servants. "It is stated that confidentiality and secrecy in certain cases are required to be maintained right from initial state up to the filing of chargesheet (in cases that lead to criminal proceedings) and up to the final order in disciplinary proceedings. The bench agreed with the government's contention that giving information relating to such proceedings would "lead to unnecessary embarrassment and definitely hamper due process". "In our view, the state has given sufficient reasons as to why it was exercising powers under Sec 24(4)," the bench said, and dismissed the petition. Source: HC upholds exclusion of vigilance commission - Chennai - Cities - The Times of India
  20. Ralph Frammolino

    Fiduciary Relationship Exempton

    Hello, RTI friends. I'm turning to you for advice. I teach at a journalism school and have two students who have been pursuing RTI requests for lists of local teachers with the highest rates of absenteeism in public schools. They found a nonprofit that has accepted government money to do a survey of local schools for a study that lists absenteeism rates by area and school. I had my students RTI the nonprofit for the names of the teachers. After first agreeing, the nonprofit has refused and used several tactics to deny the request. The first is that the actual survey was done by a private subcontractor company (students RTI'd that as well). Now, the nonprofit has responded by saying it can't disclose the names of the teachers because it has a "fiduciary relationship" with the teachers. I'm thinking this is sheer fantasy. I thouht fiduciarcy relationship had to do with a bank or some other financial institution. Can anyone out there steer me to a working definition of "fiduciary relationship" as used under the RTI that would defeat this argument? Thanks for your quick response!
  21. ganpat1956

    I-T dept seeks exemption of RTI Act

    NEW DELHI: The income-tax department has asked the department of personnel and training to amend the Right to Information (RTI) Act to shield itself from unsolicited queries on its investigations. The RTI Act has exempted the department of revenue intelligence, Intelligence Bureau, Central Excise Intelligence Bureau and the Enforcement Directorate, which are in the Schedule-II of the Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has written to the department of personnel and training that its investigation wing should also be exempted as its nature of work was similar to these agencies, a government source said. “Most of these agencies exchange information with the income-tax department, which could be very sensitive in nature. Since these agencies have been exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, it is logical the income-tax department’s investigation wing should also be exempted,” he said. The investigation mainly involves search operations to nab tax evaders. These searches, and any other investigation activity, usually involves department’s trusted network of informers, whose information is crucial to cases. These informers could get into trouble if exposed under the RTI Act and could be harassed by the affected parties, the source said. Recently, the Central Information Commission had turned down an appeal by First Global’s Shankar Sharma seeking details of investigations carried out by the income-tax department. The department had raided the stock broker’s premises in 2001 after the Tehelka sting. Though the department draws comfort from the decision, it wants to prevent anyone filing an application under the RTI Act to find out details about its investigations. The department has also conveyed its objections against bringing scrutiny under the purview of the RTI Act as the selection was carried out by a computerised system. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/I-T_dept_seeks_exemption_of_RTI_Act/articleshow/2309295.cms
  22. Agency not under RTI Act’s ambit as reported in Times of India22 Oct 2008, TNN, The Corps of Detectives (CoD) is the state’s equivalent of the Centre’s CBI. The staff of this premier agency are not involved in day-to-day law-and-order issues or crimes. Normally, complicated and sensational cases are handed over to the CoD for focused investigation. The CoD was established in 1974 to investigate major crimes and cases involving economic and financial offences. The objective was to achieve maximum results in detection of crimes and inspire public confidence in police administration. It has several squads: homicide, burglary, fraud, counterfeit, arms and explosives, anti-smuggling, special enquiry, anti-dowry cell, anti-dacoity squad. Cases related to custodial death, dowry death, gun-running and counterfeit currency are automatically taken up by the CoD. It is exempted from the ambit of Right to Information Act, 2005. CoD comes under the administrative control of the home department. Its chief (DGP) is answerable to the DG & IGP, home secretary, home minister and the chief minister. CoD will probe church blaze-Bangalore-Cities-The Times of India
  23. The Madras High Court has ordered notices on a writ appeal against a single judge order directing the Public Department to clarify a Government Order that exempts the CB-CID from the purview of the Right to Information Act. A Division Bench of Justice P.K. Misra and Justice K.K. Sasidharan ordered notices to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the Chennai City Commissioner of Police and the CB-CID Superintendent of Police, returnable in four weeks. Vishwanath Swami sought a directive to the authorities to ensure compliance with the Act, besides action against the persons who denied him certain information under the Act. He was a party-in-person “trying to expose” Kalki Bhagawan and his activities. He said the single judge order left him at the mercy of the Information Commission, which was reluctant to ensure that its own directives to the authorities were complied with. Besides the details of the investigation carried out by the police, Mr. Swami sought to know whether any departmental action was taken against the investigating officer and other officials named in his complaint. The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Exemption of CB-CID from RIA: court orders notice
  24. Plea for info on public servants' assets rejected On June 22, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected an appeal from an Right To Information (RTI) activist in Mumbai that sought information on assets and liabilities of certain officers of the Customs and Central Excise departments. Information Commissioner A N Tiwari rejected the appeal on the ground that it would violate the privacy of an individual. Rajesh Darak of Whistleblowers India had sought information on the assets and liabilities submitted by officers to the Customs department annually. However, it was denied by the Central Public Information officer and the appellate authority at Mumbai. Subsequently, Darak had appealed against the orders in the CIC. "Without this information, the citizen would never know if assets and liabilities of certain government officers are beyond their known source of income," said Darak. Interestingly, there are conflicting views among the State Information Commissions (SIC) as some of the states allow their citizens to access information related to assets and liabilities of government officers. RTI Activist Pramod Patil from Mumbai said, "This information is in public interest and hence should be made public. In Maharashtra, the information is available with the Establishment department, although I have not come across any case of citizens either being given information," said Patil. Vikram Simha, an RTI activist from Bangalore, says that floodgates have opened ever since the SIC allowed disclosure of assets of government servants in 2006 and in a parallel development the SIC also allowed an appeal seeking information on assets of government officers. "We are in the process of inspecting assets files of 6,500 employees of the Commercial Tax department. So far, we have inspected 90 files and come across discrepancies like several of the queries in the forms are unanswered," said Simha. Lamenting the decision of the CIC, Arvind Kejriwal, an RTI activist from the Delhi, said "I would rate this as a very regressive order. The fact that public servants are indulging in corruption merits public interest. Commissioner Tiwari has rejected the appeal as his own assets and liability would have to be made public." "The issue here is whether this information could be given to Parliament or the Assembly. If it cannot be denied to Parliament, then it cannot be denied to the citizens," said Bhaskar Prabhu, a Mumbai-based RTI activist. "As per the RTI Act, the citizen is the king. If information regarding assets are not given, then the citizens would not be empowered," he added. However, there are those, like noted activist Shailesh Gandhi of Mumbai, who do not believe in this view. "There is a conflict between an individual's privacy and general need. I do think some privacy is required. Whether an individual's private matters should be made public, is a debatable issue," said Gandhi. Jugal Rathi from Pune said: "Assets and liabilities of an individual is private information and the constitution protects the privacy of the individual. As per the RTI Act, if the public interest exceeds the privacy of individual, exceptions are made and information is provided under Section 8 of the Act. It cannot be a general rule; it has to be decided case to case." Plea for info on public servants' assets rejected - Yahoo! India News
  25. Dear Friends, Sub: In India- Under RTIA-2005, Many a times Informations are not shared / provided by taking shelter under the Section 8- Exemption Clauses, Why? Any remedies possible. I wish to inform you that, I have personally observed in the past & at present that almost large number of Public Information Officers at State as well as Central- up to 2nd Appellate level, do not wish to share / provide information, invariably & unjustly taking shelters under the Exemption Clause 8 of The RTIA-2005, even if its in the larger Public & Country's Interest. Even cogent reasons are not given, but a mechanical answer ready to fit & supply on the 11th hour to cover up the RTIA requirements & time stipulations. Why ? : I believe, because giving out such information can lead to litany at courts & there is always a fear of conflict of their agendas, within their own departmental interest. Any Remedies Possible ? I believe, its useless to file such multiple applications at so many levels & incur expenses , time & energy, knowing well that all over, no body has national interest & the root cause of the issues for which RTIA-2005, has been set out will never see the light of the day, which in turn hampers our Country growth & Image, to some extent. Please go through the above & share your thoughts, so that effective steps can be taken collectively to make better use of RTIA & that of the people seeking information under this act in its infancy, nothing more. Uday Prabhu.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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