- 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 'judgment'.
Found 10 results
On July 10, Justice P. Devadas of the Madras High Court recalled an order issued a month back advising mediation between a rape survivor and a convict. When the original order was delivered on June 10, it attracted wide criticism from the civil society and the legal fraternity, which called the liberal approach to rape cases a bad precedent. Hence, it was no surprise that his decision to take note of a Supreme Court verdict and modify his pronouncement was welcomed. But the High Court’s reassessment has once again brought to focus the position of law as for the recalling an order is concerned. It was only last year that a division bench of the Madras High Court recalled and omitted two paragraphs of a judgement in which it observed that the reason for seeking information had to be disclosed in an RTI application. The amendment was done after it came to light that the RTI Act itself states that no such reason is necessary to get information.Read more at; When can court recall judgment? - The Hindu
harinder dhingra posted a topic in Discussions on RTIDear Members of this August Forum, Everyday you learn something in life. Today, I learnt that if you have failed to enclose the COPY of the quoted judgment/authority (by you) in the Complaint/second appeal then your appeal/Complaint filed in Hon'ble CIC shall be dismissed. I had sought some information from Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi involving corruption allegations about the posts, ad-hoc posts and present incumbents. I had quoted from Hon'ble Division bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court order in 644 & 645 of 2011 titled Additional D G P Vs CIC, State Information Commission, Haryana in which the Hon'ble High Court had directed that same (undersigned sought information as was mentioned in the judgment) information has to be provided by public authorities falling under Section second schedule who otherwise are exempt under RTI act 2005 but have to provide information if it involves corruption or and human rights as stipulated under Section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005. But the most learned, Hon'ble Mr. Yousufi, IC of CIC & my ICON dismissed my Complaint by stating that quoted judgment copy has not been disclosed. Har Shakh pe Uloo Betha hain Halen Gulistaan Kya Hoga? harinder dhingra
A person can use the RTI Act to access an information even if it is available through any other route, Delhi High Court has ruled. ************************************************************************************************************* The court, in a landmark order which will impact number of RTI cases of similar nature, allowed a petition seeking disclosure of communication between Urban Development Ministry officials with those of CBI--an exempted organisation--in a corruption case. In a recent order, Justice Vibhu Bakhru also said that section 8(1)(h) of the Act--which allows an organisation to withhold such information that impedes the process of investigation, apprehension and prosecution--cannot be imposed without giving proper reasons to justify the denial. Allowing the petition seeking disclosure of communication between the Ministry and CBI, he dismissed the order given by Information Commissioner MA Khan Yusufi who had agreed with the Ministry to deny information on the grounds that its disclosure would impede the process of prosecution. Justice Bakhru said neither the first appellate authority nor the Central Information Commission considered how the information sought for would impede the process of probe, apprehension or prosecution of the petitioner, an accused. He rejected the Ministry's argument that during trial, the material relied upon by the prosecution would be provided to the applicant, thereby no prejudice would be caused to him. "In my view this cannot be a ground to deny information to the petitioner. First of all, the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary, is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not condition on the information being relevant," he said. He said the fact that the petitioner has access to the material relied upon by the prosecution does not prevent him from seeking information, which he considers necessary for his defence.
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTIPlease see the below judgment of the Karnataka High Court. In it the court has declared the decision passed by the SIC (while disposing a Complaint under Sec 18 ), directing PIO to provide "information" is not correct since the SC has already passed an judgment (State of Manipur case) that under Sec 18, the commission cannot order disclosure of information. However, in this case, the dates are very relevant: Date of RTI application: 11.02.2009 Date of PIOs reply: 06.04.2009 Date of complaint to SIC: 15.07.2009 Date of SIC decision: 04.02.2010 Date of Supreme Court judgment: 12.12.2011 (Well after all the above dates !) But still the High Court has quashed the SIC order in the above matter. Is it valid ? ========================== Karnataka High Court Shri Chandrashekar vs The Commissioner on 6 January, 2015 Author: S.Abdul Nazeer IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION NO.4460/2011 (GM-RES) Between: Shri Chandrashekar, S/o late Madhava Rao, Aged about 59 years, Presently working as Tahasildar, Shimoga Taluk & Dist. .... Petitioner. (By Sri S.V.Prakash, Adv.) And: 1 The Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission, Gate No.2, 2nd and 3rd Floors, M.S.Bldg., Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga District. 2 3 Sri Rangaswamy, S/o Kariyappa, Major, R/a Near Children Care Centre, 4th Cross, Hosmane Extension, Shimoga City 577 201. .... Respondents. (By Sri M.I.Arun, AGA for R1 and R2 R3 served) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 24.6.2010 at Annexure 'H', etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER The third respondent had filed an application seeking information before the Public Information Officer on 11.2.2009. The Public Information Officer issued an endorsement at Annexure 'B' dated 6.4.2009 stating that the information sought for by him is not available in the office of the Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk and District. 2. The petitioner was posted as the Public Information Officer on 15.7.2009. The 3rd respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('Act' for short) before the first respondent herein seeking the very same information. The first respondent passed an order dated 4.2.2010 directing the petitioner herein to furnish the information. Since the information was not furnished by the petitioner, an order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/-. This was followed by yet another order at Annexure 'A' dated 29.10.2010 whereby the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to deduct the penalty amount from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. As noticed above, the Public Information Officer has responded to the application of the 3rd respondent by issuing an endorsement at Annexure 'B' dated 6.4.2009 stating that the information sought for by him is not available in the office of the Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk and District. This order has not been challenged by the 3rd respondent under Section 19 of the Act. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent has directly filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking information before the first respondent, which was not permissible in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER - AIR 2012 SC 864 has held that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power under Section 18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person, who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of the Act. Nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person, who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information, which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19. 5. It is thus clear that the application filed by the 3rd respondent seeking information under Section 18 before the first respondent was not maintainable. Consequently, the order passed on the said application is without jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 and the consequential order at Annexure 'M' dated 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent are without authority of law. 6. Even otherwise, it is clear from the materials on record that during the relevant period, the petitioner was posted on election duty. That is why the petitioner could not appear before the Commission and respond to the notice issued by the Commission. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 and the consequential order at Annexure 'M' dated 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent are hereby quashed. No costs. Sd/-JUDGE.BMM/-
Prasad GLN posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportThere appears good reasoning in judgment, as there are several candidates appearing for the examination and if every one asks for a copy of answer sheet, 75% of Public Authorities may have to spend 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing in information instead of discharging their duties. But what is the justification by learned ICs in applying the same decision in all cases. For example an all India present organisation (in all nuke and corner) there were just 67 second appeals before CIC in one year against 25 CPIOs (Around 5 per month country wide whereas staff is more than one lakh) . Because an applicant has filed 4 applications, as CPIO has been providing different information different times without providing such certified copies, the way of disposing the application by citing the SC decision by IC may not appear proper. Is it not the duty of IC to apply his mind to actual issue. ?, When DOPT has issued 3 directives to Public Authorities to place entire RTI related information of citizens in their websites, and there are several CIC decisions, when Public Authority (Who had the distinction of TOP 10 first fully computerised organisations) is not obeying the DOPT directive, IC ignoring the DOPT directive and then sparing PIO without a single comment on such lapse may not be a casual decision. How many Public AUthorities have implemented those DOPT directives ? ICs must remember practical aspects and issues/circumstances on that specific appeal discussed by SC into consideration while disposing each and every appeal citing that SC judgment . Without studying the background of such judgment disposing every case where multiple appeals are filed citing that judgment is not proper.
In a judgment of, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Maryadit, Jagdalpur v. State Information Commission, 2011(4) Civil LJ 54 at 57(Chh) it was held: Preamble to this Act of 2005 shows that it is an enactment to provide for setting out the practical regime of RTI for citizens to secure access to information under the control of Public Authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every PA. The preamble further reads that democracy requires informed citizenry and transparency of information, which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to be governed. The Act of 2005 also seeks to harmonize conflicting interest while preserving the paramountancy of the democratic ideal.
karira posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsIn an order similar to the one issued to RBI, the CIC directed the postal department to disclose the list of largest unclaimed deposits with the post offices. Full order is attached to this post. Unclaimed Postal Deposits.pdf
RTI in respect of provision for legal aid to persons below poverty line for filing public interest litigations in Supreme Court of India During the hearing, the Appellant reiterated that he could not find any such information in the Supreme Court website. On further enquiry from the respondents, we noted that the desired information, or at least part of it, was available in the Supreme Court of India, Practice and Procedure, a Handbook of Information, a publication of the Supreme Court of India. It appears the CPIO had, by mistake, referred the Appellant to see the Supreme Court Rules 1966 instead rather than the above Handbook. In chapter 10 of the Handbook, the eligibility conditions and procedure for accessing legal aid have been described. According to this, any citizen whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 50,000 can seek legal aid. Free legal assistance is also provided to various categories of the deprived and depressed sections of the society. However, it has been made very clear that no legal aid would be available for a variety of cases including matters of defamation, malicious prosecution, perjury and, in contempt of court etc. We understand that this Handbook is also available in the Supreme Court website under the link 'publications'. It is also a priced publication, available for sale to the general public not only in the Supreme Court of India itself but in all leading legal bookstores. We hope that with the above information, the Appellant can now either find out the publication in the Supreme Court website itself or procure it from any bookstore of his choice.1 Central Information Commission Mr. Aseem Takyar vs Supreme Court Of India on 6 August, 2013 Central Information Commission, New Delhi -http://http://www.lawweb.in/2013/10/rti-in-respect-of-provision-for-legal.html
gregjenings posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHi Guys, I am looking for some judgments, Rulings either by CIC or High Courts or even Supreme Court which made it easy to get information from a cooperative society (Specially Cooperative Housing Society). I know I can use 2f of RTi act to achieve some limited information from the governing body related to the Cooperative Society but I want that I should get the information directly from Cooperative society which is not possible under current RTI Act. The governing body shows their helplessness in this regard pretending they can't do anything else if society refuse to provide info. So please share some info related to it as I am very much disappointed by the process and harassment by Cooperative Housing society.
Madras High Court under RTI Act? U/s 6(1)/RTI Act, 2005 (22/05)I have given an e mail application requesting to issue the following info. accompanying MO for Rs 10/ on 19.08.09. 1) Judgment in WP 6957/88 dated 19.7.90 2) Judgment in OA 1961/90 dated 22.4.91 3) Judgment in WP 12853/87 dated 12.12.91 4) Judgment in Contempt App. No. 50/93 dated 6.1.94 (in OA 1961/90) 5) Judgment in WA 519/01 dated 14.9.01 6) Interim injection in WP 15029/03 dated 13.5.03 & order on Cont. P. in it. 7) Interim injection in WP 15241/03 dated 20.5.03 order on Cont. p. 338/04 dated 1.7.05 The MO was refused by the PIO Again on 28.8.09 the application was given personally. Now on 11/16.9.09 the PIO informed me ‘to file proper application before the Hon’ble Court u/Order XII Rule 3 of the Appellate Side Rules, High Court, of Madras Therefore u/s 7(2)/RTI Act, 2005 the PIO have failed to give the requested info. within the period shall be deemed to have refused the request. Hence u/s 7(8)/RTI Act, 2005 the PIO is yet to communicate ii) the period within which appeal to be prefer iii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority. u/s 18(1)(e)/RTI Act, 2005 the PIO have given misleading/ false info. Therefore u/s 19(1)/ RTI Act, 2005 I had preferred an appeal (09.11.09) before the Appellative Authority to issue the above info. through e mail. This appeal also dismissed in the above cited ref.7 2nd Appeal to the SCIC (27.12.09)has been prefer to get the above info. through e mail & with a request to penalized the PIO for his misdeed & to pay Adequate compensation to me. But there is no response from the the PIO & SCIC. I have reason to believe that the PIO of Madras High Court have no e mail ID to reveal in its web site (not accessable). The SCIC not acknowledged my appeal through e mail & hence I have to file it physically. The PIO of Madras High Court & the SCIC are under shadow, murky, doubtful, illegal & unconstitutional. Therefore guide me 'how to get the above info from the above PA RTI Act'.