- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'home ministry'.
Found 4 results
momita posted a entry in NewsChief Information Commissioner Sudhir Bhargava relied on several noted judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to reject the contentions of the ministry. Mother of Pradeep Yeshwanth Kokde, who is on death row in Yerwada jail in Pune, had approached the Union Home Ministry seeking copies of file notings made in relation to the mercy petition filed by him under the Right to Information. The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution. The Home Ministry denied the information citing Article 74(2) of the Constitution which protects from disclosure the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President as it is privileged communication. The applicant argued before the Commission, highest adjudicating body onI matters, that the Article protects only the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers and that the information sought by her does not pertain to the ministerial advice. The ministry said that the recommendations along with all documents which lead to the formation of ministerial advice to the President of India are privileged under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution and cannot be disclosed under theI Act. These documents are an integral part of the government decision-making process and cannot be isolated from the ambit of “advice to the President”, the Home Ministry contended. The ministry cited a Delhi High Court order which had set aside an order of the Commission directing disclosure of information relating to the 2002 correspondence between the then President of India and the then Prime Minister relating to Gujarat riots. Chief Information Commissioner Sudhir Bhargava relied on several noted judgments of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to reject the contentions of the ministry. The Commission, however, asked the ministry to sever all the names and other references from the files which could reveal the identity of public officials involved in the decision-making process. Kokde has been convicted for hatching a criminal conspiracy, abducting, raping and killing a BPO employee working at Hinjewadi, Pune on November 1, 2007.
As reported at oheraldo.in on May 8, 2011 PANJIM, MAY 7: The home minister’s shock, surprise and confusion when Team Herald confronted him with a straight query whether the Special Investigation Team was constituted to probe the Cipriano Fernandes custodial death case was not surprising. Herald first reported it in its February 26 Weekend edition (Home Minister played SIT card to delay action against Panjim cops,) and then again in its March 20 edition (When the lies come Home). On February 3, the home minister announced in the assembly a SIT headed by a senior officer Om Prakash Kurtarkar would investigate the actions of police officials charged with murdering Cipriano Fernandes in police custody. The next day, he prevented his own Home Department from recommending to the director general of police to take action against the accused police officers of the Panjim police station and wrote on the internal note, where this recommendation was made (again published by this newspaper earlier) “I have announced in the legislative assembly that SIT headed by Om Prakash Kurtarkar will be constituted and action against officials will be taken after submission of the SIT report.” As Heralds investigations have revealed there is no record of the Police Establishment Board transferring the case to the SIT. When the government decides to constitute a Special Investigating Team, the ideal process is that the Police Establishment Board headed by the DGP and consisting of the IG, the DIG, the senior superintendent of police and SP headquarters has to formally appoint an officer to head it. This is ratified by the Home Department and then sent to the Law Department. A formal notification is then issued. Importantly, the terms of reference and the time frame for the inquiry are clearly defined in the notification. In a reply to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by social activist Jowett D ‘Souza, SP Headquarters V U Borkar said that no information of the Police Establishment Board meeting to transfer the case to SIT w as available. The only record of who will investigate the charges of murder, among others, of police officers of the Panjim police station, is this letter by DIG RS Yadav dated 9/02/2011. The letter states “The investigation of this case will be conducted by Braz Menezes PI under the direct supervision of Mohan Naik, SP of CB CID and overall supervision of O P Kurtarkar Supt of Police (coastal security)” Kurtarkar, the man who Ravi Naik said in the assembly was going to head the SIT investigations on the case, has admitted to Herald that he is there in his capacity as SP Coastal Security. The case is on paper with PI Vasco Braz Menezes who was deputed to the Crime Branch but is back in his old post of PI Vasco without relinquishing his position as head of investigations of the Cipriano case. In the backdrop of all these developments, the supposed lack of knowledge about the formation of a team whose report will decide the government’s action against the killer cops appears to be a cover up to protect the Panjim policemen.
As reported by Supriya Bhardwaj, TNN at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 25 February, 2009 CHANDIGARH: Following the Justice Nanavati Commission report, the Centre had announced a rehabilitation package to provide relief to all victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. However, an RTI application revealed that applications moved by 95 affected families with Chandigarh administration had hit the red tape. Now, armed with this information, an NGO, Lawyers for Human Rights International (LFHRI), will file a PIL on Wednesday. With their patience almost giving way, waiting for compensation, these families had approached LFHRI to take up their cause. Claiming to have taken refuge in city after fleeing the mayhem in various parts of the country, the victims were heartbroken when even after 24 years they had not been appropriately compensated. “Information procured under the RTI Act revealed that UT administration had forwarded the 95 cases to the ministry of home affairs (MHA) following an extension of the rehabilitation package to all riot victims of 1984, but the MHA did not take a decision,” said advocate Navkiran Singh who will be filing the PIL on the NGO’s behalf under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking directions for the government to take a decision at the earliest. Advocate Tejinder Singh Sudan, president, LFHRI, Chandigarh unit, said, “Victims across the nation have got compensation but those settled here are still waiting.” Source: NGO to file PIL today for 1984 riot victims-Chandigarh-Cities-The Times of India
fightin498a posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHi friends, I sent an RTI application addressed to the PIO, o/o DIG of Police, Bhubaneswar, by speed post with A/D. Yesterday, it came back with the envelop opened, and the following written on the envelop: No such addressee in this designation. Hence returned. Moreover, the a/d is missing too. Now I'm planning to send the application to the CPIO, Home ministry, Orissa secretariat directly... Any more suggestions from experienced people? Should I also file an RTI to the postal dept about why was the envelop opened, if not delivered, and why is the a/d not delivered back with it?