Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'landmark judgement'.
Found 3 results
1. Can a government department refuse to accept two or more my identifying certificates on the grounds that "one identification has the middle name just initialized and the other has the middle name in the expanded form"? [could be a legal question actually]. This has happened even when the father's name(second level of identification) and date of birth(third level of identification) matches in both. This is specially in relation to the PAN card department about not accepting my certificates as valid to make changes in PAN card. 2. How to frame RTI and to whom to frame RTI for this? A lot of us have middle names. Sometimes we initialize it, sometimes we expand it. Does just using the initials(in name or middle name) make us unidentifiable even when other layers of identification are provided? For instance, our former President was called S.Radhakrishnan and sometimes he expanded and sometimes he didn't. But that didn't make him ineligible for consideration of both names. 3. Can I file RTI with Supreme Court asking for documents which show that just because a person's middle name(or name) is initialized doesn't make him ambiguous or unidentifiable, provided other layers of identification are provided. 4. This can be a landmark RTI if we have a reply from, say, Supreme Court and can be used to quote in future RTIs. I'm sure people who have legal background have the answer already. Please share your views.
Shrawan posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsBANGALORE: In a landmark decision, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that evaluated answer scripts should be made available to anybody who wishes to see them and cannot be kept confidential for the benefit of the examiners. The commission has ordered the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to make available the answerscripts free of cost to applicant E Ramamurthy, who sought copies of four answer scripts of the Gazetted Probationers Examinations, 1998. State chief information commissioner K K Misra and state information officer K A Thippeswamy have rejected the KPSC's plea, which said that answer scripts cannot be made public as they are exempted under Sec 8 (i) (e) and 8 (i) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. KIC observed. More importantly, it has rejected the Central Information Commission's decision under Section 8 (i) (j) saying that seeking evaluated answer papers either his/her own or others is purely personal and has no relationship to any public interest or activity. "This view does not appear correct to this commission. Although the applicant is not to be asked the purpose for seeking information, in the present case, providing the information would ensure the impartiality, objectivity, and fairness of the evaluation by examiners appointed by public services commissions whose purpose incidentally is of utmost concern to the people," it stated. the KIC has held. [sourse: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Go_public_with_answer_scripts/articleshow/461240.cms]
Shrawan posted a topic in RTI in MediaIn a landmark judgement Central Information Commission in a full bench ordered Union Public Service Commission to disclose the marks assigned to each of the applicants for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2006 in General Studies and in Optional Papers & also disclose the cut-off marks fixed in respect of the General Studies paper and in respect of each of the Optional Papers and if no such cut-off marks are there, it shall disclose the subject-wise marks assigned to short-listed candidates The UPSC shall, within two weeks from the date of this order, disclose the marks assigned to each of the applicants for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2006 in General Studies and in Optional Papers; and The UPSC, within two weeks from the date of this order, shall also disclose the cut-off marks fixed in respect of the General Studies paper and in respect of each of the Optional Papers and if no such cut-off marks are there, it shall disclose the subject-wise marks assigned to short-listed candidates; and The UPSC shall examine and consider under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act the disclosure of the scaling system as it involves larger public interest in providing a level playing field for all aspirants and shall place the matter before the Competent Authority within one month from the date of this order. This will also cover the issue of disclosure of model answers, which we recommend should in any case be made public from time to time. In doing so, it shall duly take into account the provisions of Section 9 of the RTI Act. The appeal was filed asking for: Total marks scored by the appellant in written papers as well as interview should be disclosed. The procedure and the technique that are followed to determine the cut-off point (or level of score of marks) to draw the line between successful candidates and others should be disclosed for each category of aspirants. Since the action relating to determination and application of cut-off point being an extremely critical factor in life and career of a person should fall under public domain, the information sought should be furnished since the matter is complete and over. On the grievance that the Selection Committee was not properly composed, there is no provision in the RTI Act for redress of such grievance. However, in order to ensure that persons of high caliber and integrity are associated with the process of selection, the composition of such Boards/Committees should be made public after the entire process of selection is over. Some of the Civil Service aspirants who have appeared for the Civil Services preliminary examination, 2006, including one Shiv Shambhu and many other applicants applied to the UPSC seeking the following information: Separate cut-off marks for General Studies and for every optional subject for different categories such as General, OBC, SC/ST and PH; Details of marks obtained by each candidate; Model answers for each series of every subject; Reasons behind re-conducting UPSC consults the subject experts, designs the questions papers, and takes model answers in respect of each of such question papers. The question papers, which are prepared by subject experts for UPSC in a particular manner, are original literary works and as such copyright in respect thereto vests in the UPSC. Since this literary work has been done by the subject experts on behalf of the UPSC, it can legitimately claim copyrights thereof and can thereby restrict its circulation or can exclude others from circulating it. Since copyrights are part of Intellectual Property right, which is covered under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, this Commission cannot order its disclosure. Under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, the UPSC, therefore, has no obligation to disclose any such material unless it is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The decision agreed to by the Full Bench is announced by the Chief Information Commissioner on this the 13th day of November 2006.