- 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 'section 11'.
Found 10 results
jps50 posted a blog entry in J.P.ShahWhenever information relating to or supplied by the third party is sought under RTI Act, PIOs refuse stating that information pertains to third party. Some PIOs issue notice to third-party u/s 11.1 and if the third party does not permit, PIOs decline supply of information stating that third party has not permitted or has objected to supplying of information. NOTE ON THIRD PARTY INFORMATION- REFUSAL BY PIO under RTI ACT Whenever information relating to or supplied by third party is sought under RTI Act, PIOs refuse stating that information pertains to third party. Some PIOs issue notice to third party u/s 11.1 and if third party does not permit, PIOs decline supply of information stating that third party has not permitted or has objected to supply of information. First appeal needs to be filed based on following points under such circumstances: 01. Third party should have treated information as confidential while supplying the information. If it is not treated as confidential by third party section 11 will not come into operation. 02. Even when party has treated information as confidential, it has to be disclosed if larger public interest is involved outweighing in importance any possible harm to interest of third party. [This is not applicable to information relating to trade or commercial secrets protected by any law]. 03. PIO does not require permission or NOC from third party. He has to give third party opportunity to be heard orally or in writing. He should then finally decide whether information should be revealed or not. 04. Even in case of third party, PIO has to deny information only under sections 8 or 9 as provided in section 7.1. PIO is also required to justify how he came to the conclusion that section 8 or 9 is applicable for such denial. Similarly the third party should have objected to disclosure only under section 8 or 9, justifying non-disclosure. 05. Information of the third party which is already in public domain has to be revealed without complying with section 11. 06. Denial of information just because it relates to or is supplied by third party and /or treated as confidential by third party, without assigning one or more reasons mentioned in sub-sections of 8.1 or 9 is in gross violation of provisions and spirit of RTI Act. 07. Section 11 comes into play only if PIO first intends to reveal information subject to the hearing point of view of the third party. If PIO does not want to reveal, section 11 does not come into play. 08. The applicant is entitled to have a copy of say of third party or minutes of oral hearing by PIO based on which PIO has decided to deny disclosure. This will enable the applicant to file the first appeal. This is true of first appeal proceedings also. 09. PIO is also bound to decide whether information supplied by third party can be treated as confidential by third party. The third party has to justify why information supplied by it should be treated as confidential. 10. When information per se or ex facie cannot be regarded as confidential, then the procedure under section 11 is not to be followed. 11. As regards information relating to third party which is not supplied by third party, but created by public authority, PIO should invoke section 11 only if third party would be justified in treating information as confidential. 12. Any information which is older than 20 years as on date of RTI application relating to any occurrence, event or matter of a third party has to be disclosed by PIO, without reference to third party. 13. Information generated by govt employees as part of his service cannot be treated as third-party information. 14. Refer CIC decisions as under: CIC/SG/A/2011/002117/15548 dated 11-11-2011 CIC/AT/A/2009/000821 dated 16-03- 2010. CIC/SM/A/2011/001687 dated 10-10-2011 CIC/AT/A/2007/01297 dated 29-02-2008. and following judgments: Dated 26-11-2010 of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7538 of 2010 [para 8] Dated 30-09-2011 of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in LPA No. 719/2010 Dated 25-06-2007 of Madurai Bench of Hon’ble MADRAS HIGH COURT In WRIT PETITION (MD) No.5427 of 2007 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2007 It is advisable to attach this note signed by the applicant with RTI application seeking information of third party, so that PIO does not reply on flimsy grounds. Compiled by: Please also refer - http://www.rtiindia.org/blogs/entry/292-rights-third-party-under-rti-act.html
rtiindia posted a post in Section 19[caption id=attachment_1879" align="aligncenter" width="600] RTI for Ration Card[/caption] On a RTI for Ration card pertaining to third party, the commission has allowed disclosure of information with a legible attested photocopy of the computerized record of the ration card of Shri Jaiveer Singh as requested in the RTI application as after hearing the case it was felt that it is in the larger public interest provide the information. Not only the above disclosure was allowed, the CIC also directed to provide affidavit to the Commission with copy to the appellant that there are no other records held by the public authority pertaining to the matter of the RTI application (regarding issue of ration card to Shri Jaiveer Singh). Over our forum, we have numerous questions on applicability of RTI for Ration Card. Those all related posts can be read here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/tags/ration-card.html and you can also search of the related help on Ration card from here: http://goo.gl/a0QK0A Case Details of RTI for Ration Card Appellant submitted RTI application dated 9 May 2012 before the CPIO, Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs (GNCT), New Delhi seeking details regarding the documents submitted by Shri Jaiveer Singh for obtaining his Ration Card. Vide Order dated 14 June 2012, Appellant was informed by the CPIO that documents sought are not available in the office. Appellant preferred first Appeal to the First Appellate Authority. Vide Order dated 31 July 2012, FAA allowed Appellant to inspect the Concerned file(s). Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. Decision of CIC on RTI for Ration Card According to the CIC decision uploaded "After hearing both the parties Commission is satisfied that disclosure of information in the present case is in the larger public interest and directs the CPIO to provide the appellant with a legible attested photocopy of the computerized record of the ration card of Shri Jaiveer Singh as requested in the RTI application. Further, CPIO is directed to forward a copy of Commission’s order to the ‘third party’ Shri Jaiveer Singh informing him the outcome of the present case in the light of “Larger Public Interest” The CPIO will also provide affidavit to the Commission with copy to the appellant that there are no other records held by the public authority pertaining to the matter of the RTI application (regarding issue of ration card to Shri Jaiveer Singh). Information as above to be provided and action as above to be completed within two weeks of receipt of the order. (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Chief Information Commissioner Citation: Appeal: No. CIC/AD/A/2012/002971/DS
rtiindia posted a post in CIC DecisionsFirst Appellate Authority decided the case without inviting RTI Applicant for hearing. Central Information Commission remanded back the RTI case to First Appellate Authority (FAA) with directions to decide the appeal after affording an opportunity to the appellant for hearing. Not giving personal hearing to the appellant to make their submissions is against the principles of natural justice and even the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus, it is not legally tenable. (Learn how to file RTI Online here with our simple guide) Earlier the CPIO vide his response had simply denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 without mentioning as to whether the comments of the Third Party was invited or not. Surprisingly, FAA mentioned that the procedure laid down relating to third party has been followed by the CPIO and the parties concerned have given in writing that the applicant has family disputes and business rivalry with them and as per the Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, no such information may be given to him. CIC recorded that "the views of CPIO and FAA are in a divergent direction. As such, these are not legally tenable." Personal hearing important while deciding first appeal under RTI The Commission was of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to learned FAA with a direction to disposed of the appellant’s First Appeal, under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, afresh, after affording an opportunity to the appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. As such, the case is remanded back. Shri S P Goyal Vs The Dy. Commissioner cum CPIO O/o. the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (GRFL) Sahnewal, G T Road, Ludhiana, File No. CIC/KY/A/2014/0000287 dated 01.07.2014 (This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must read and download the decision from the CIC website. If you have any query, kindly post it over our website here!)
rtiindia posted a post in CIC DecisionsIn an unprecedented decision, CIC imposed a penalty over RTI Applicant even though the RTI Act do not provide for the same. Central Information Commission while deciding the case recorded that "Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission record its contempt against RTI Applicant for misusing the RTI Act against the school child and imposed a penalty of Re. 10/ which is to be paid to the Principal of the School". Commission, also directed the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of Rs 1000 each be paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy. The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. CIC imposed penalty over both PIO and RTI Applicant Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K Jain vs. Union of India [sLP © No.22609 of 2012] dated 16.04.2013 had Highlighted the importance of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Read more about Privacy under RTI Act here: What is Privacy under RTI Act. You can download the decision here: Lalit Kapur v. PIO, Deputy Director of Education (North EastB) Appellant had sought for information regarding a student of R.D Public School. He wanted copy of the transfer certificate of class XI on the basis of which the student got admission in class XII, details of the school no./roll no./school registration no. and date of admission of the school etc CIC noted that it is interrogative in nature and RTI Applicant is fishing to find basis to embarrass the child or his family not with a good motive and for some unspecified purpose, which is certainly not ‘public purpose’. The CPIO committed breach of S 11 of RTI Act and ignored the order of Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case. The CPIO should have considered the question of welfare of the child from the relatives who were in family dispute with the parents of the child.
rtiindia posted a post in BSNL & MTNL[caption id=attachment_240" align="alignright" width="203] disclosure of information to third party[/caption] If the profile of the person seeking Information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of information to third party. The Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the RTI Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 13/12/20012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] has held that clause 8(1)(g) can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Husband (RTI Applicant) has filed several RTI applications with the BSNL seeking various information relating to Lady employee of BNSL with whom he appears to have a matrimonial dispute and in response to communications to her by the CPIO under Section 11 of the RTI Act, she has objected to the disclosure stating that the information is of personal nature, does not involve any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of her privacy. She has also contended that the appellant, who asserts himself to be her husband, has criminal intent and there is a threat to her physical safety, she has claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. Disclosure of information to third party Central Information Commission while deciding the case noted that "In the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand the appellant’s allegations against his estranged wife of criminal activity, owning assets disproportionate to her known sources of income, etc only demonstrate his personal bias rather than any public purpose warranting denial of statutory exemption as available to the respondent. It being so, we hold that the information sought is exempt under Section 8 (1) (g), & (j) of the RTI Act." In one such other case CIC has ruled that the fact that the appellant is the husband does not alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in law and therefore, Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act is applicable. Also on another case available at our Law segment, CIC refused attempt by husband to get hold of information about his wife’s locker citing section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, as he is the third party. In this present case Mr. Alok Sharma Vs BNSL , CIC/BS/A/2013/001026/5102 12 May 2014 the information was not disclosed to husband and it was exempt under Section 8(1) (g), & (j) of the RTI Act. The decision is available at the CIC website here! You should also read various discussions regarding Third Party Information under RTI at our forums. Do you have anything to add to this case decision, please post it at comments below.
In yet another case Central Information Commission has allowed inspection of documents pertaining to third party citing larger public interest even though third party has said that his file should not be shown to anyone. The RTI applicant argued that the matter was a matter of interest to the public because the railways had indulged in selective decision making and discrimination. The appellant said that the railways had decided differently in the matter of one person, hence the issue was of interest to those who had not been given the same treatment. CIC found the argument of the appellant tenable and allowed inspection of the documents. (If you have any questions relating to third party clause, please go to our forum here and post your query, our experts shall reply to you). The learning for PIO is that if the third party objects to giving the information, the Public Information Officer must take his objections and see if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1) apply. Even, if any of the exemption clauses apply, the PIO is then obliged to see if there is a larger Public interest in disclosure. If none of the exemption clauses apply, information has to be given. REFERENCE: Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision No. CIC /A T/A/2008/01262SG/2109 No third party exemption on discrimination The appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he wanted to see the file of Shri Deepak Sharma to know the basis on which the case of Shri Sharma was decided. The appellant stated that the Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer did not allow him inspection of file of Shri Deepak Sharma. During the hearing the representative of Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that a number of persons were working in the railway station as Commission Vendors and that all the concerned persons were sought to be accommodated in the railways. One of the persons was Shri Deepak Sharma, who had filed a case in the court. The court had given a judgment in his favour. The Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that the case of Shri Deepak Sharma was decided by the them on the basis of court’s judgment. Shri Deepak Sharma was asked for his consent so that Railways can allow inspection of file to the appellant. Shri Deepak Sharma replied that his file should not be shown to anyone. The Divl. Office, North Western Railway, Ajmer stated that Shri Sharma did not give his consent, hence he did not allow inspection of file to the appellant. The case is available here! If you have anything to add to this story, kindly post it over comments below. If you have questions, you can go to our forum and post the query. (This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must read and download the decision from the CIC website)
rtiindia posted a post in Simplified RTIMedico Legal Case (MLC) can be disclosed under RTI Act after applying third party procedure. The PIO has rejected the information stating that MLC is a legal paper and for obtaining this the person who is nominated and person concern can only get the copy of it. Without MLC no it cannot be provided. Even the First Appellate Authority has rejected the case claiming exemption under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing both sides directs the PIO to follow the third party procedure u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act and to take a decision based on the objection/consent of the third party and inform the Appellant accordingly. What is Medico Legal case (MLC).. The Following Category of Cases Should be Made as M.L.C. All injury cases, circumstances of which suggests commission of offence by someone. All burn injuries due to any cause. All vehicular, railway, aeroplane, ship, boat, factory, construction site or other unnatural accidents where there is likelihood of death or grievous hurt. Suspected or evident homicide, suicide including attempted. Suspected or evident poisoning. Suspected or evident sexual assaults. Suspected or evident criminal abortion. Unconscious cases where the cause is not natural or not clear. Cases brought dead with improper history creating suspicion of an offence. Cases referred by Courts or otherwise for age estimation. Dead on arrival cases, or patients who die shortly after being brought to the Casualty and before a definite diagnosis could be made. Any other case not falling under the above mentioned category but has legal implications. Patients dying suddenly after parenteral administration of a drug or medication. Patient falling down or any mishap in the Hospital, sustaining injury in the Hospital. Death on Operation table. Unexplained death after surgery or Interventional procedure. Unexplained ICU death. Patient treated and then referred from a private hospital or other Government hospital with complications of surgery or delivery or bleeding, where the cause of death unexplained. Relatives of the patient assault the treating doctor or other staff of the hospital. Relatives of the patient create a law and order problem in the hospital. When an autopsy is contemplated, these guidelines are to be followed to decide whether a Pathological or Medicolegal (Forensic) autopsy is to be requested: Pathological Autopsy is to be requested when death is due to unexplained disease process or in cases that are rare or in cases which have academic interest. Medicolegal (Forensic) Autopsy is to be requested in the above mentioned 1 to 20 circumstances. MLC can be disclosed after applying third party clause The RTI case decision is available here. You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
[caption id=attachment_36" align="alignleft" width="300] Husband wife and third party clause under RTI[/caption] Husband wife and third party clause under RTI CIC has ruled that as Husband and Wife are separate legal entity therefore Husband wife and third party clause under RTI are applicable. In the second appeal an applicant has pleaded that procedure of section 11 of the RTI Act should not have been followed in this case as the requested information does not concern third party and he is asking for information about her wife only. the CIC has ruled that the fact that the appellant is the husband does not alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant forcefully contends that the procedure of section 11 of the RTI Act should not have been followed in this case as the requested information does not concern third party. Besides, disclosure of requested information would not compromise the safety and security of the persons concerned. Nor would it compromise the confidentiality of information. The main legal issue raised by the appellant in the hearing held under reference is that the CPIO was not right in following the procedure prescribed u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act as he was not seeking third party information. It is pertinent to mention that in his representation, the appellant has questioned the induction of Smt.Monica Sharma, his wife, as 49% partner in the Narinder Gas Agency by HPCL on 22.9.04 and finally declaring her to be 100% owner of the said gas agency in August 2009. On the other hand, Organisation has stated that the appellant, indeed, has sought third party information and the procedure prescribed u/s 11 has been correctly followed. The appellant has raised a legal issue. Husband wife and third party clause under RTI The commission stated that " Suffice to say, even if the facts stated herein above are cent per cent correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’. Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is 100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section. The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act. 4. Now the question arises whether the requested information should be disclosed to the appellant. I would answer this question in the negative as the third party had not agreed to the impugned disclosure. Even otherwise, I find it rather strange that the appellant, being the husband, is seeking information regarding the gas agency of his wife, particularly when his father failed in his endeavours in this regard, as held by this Commission in order dated 26.12.12 (F.No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002287). Looked at from any angle, the appeal must fail. Dismissed." Kindly read the numerous discussions at out forum regarding Third Party Information under RTI
rtiindia posted a post in RTI Act 2005After his son not getting good marks in the MBBS exam, father filed RTI to obtain copy of question paper and answer keys and disclosure of marks from the University. RTI Applicant stated that supply of the documents after completion of the admission process would be embarrassing, humiliating and prejudice to the life and liberty of his son, therefore if he is given a speedy access to the said documents, then his ranking is likely to move up. However, Central Information Commission did not agree to this and recorded that "Complainant has failed to prove how the non disclosure of information affects the life and liberty of his son. (If you want to file RTI Online, do read our guide on how to file RTI online here) His son getting poor marks and his son’s belief in having done well in Botany and Zoology is not good enough to invoke the ‘life and liberty’ clause. It is not proper and correct to treat every application for disclosure of marks sheet or key etc, as life and liberty related application. Hence that plea was rejected by CIC. Urgency Clause On the issue of urgency clause, CIC stated that if the disclosure as sought reveals increase in marks of appellant’s son, and admissions get closed, he might lose one year which could be irreparable. This is the only ground on which the urgency plea could be accepted and priority in hearing could be granted. But, because the appellant sought compensation of Rs 5 lac and penalty be imposed on the public authority, CIC observed that there is no justification for hearing it on priority. Immediate imposition of penalty The Commission further observed that if complainant wanted to treat this complaint as complaint only, there is no need for urgent hearing because, heavens do not fall if there is no immediate imposition of penalty and grant of compensation which can wait for the other side to present their case. Thus CIC finds that there is no urgency in the complaint and directs the matter to be listed for hearing as per its turn. Statutory rules prescribed by any Public Authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act The RTI application also raised the following issue before the commission "Whether the University or for that matter any Public Authority has to supply the documents as per the fees prescribed under the RTI Act when the Complainant/Appellant seeks information under RTI Act or according to the fees prescribed by the Public Authority." In case Sh. Deepak Agnihotri Vs. State Bank of India F. no. CIC/SM/A/2009/001883AT, by the Information Commissioner Shri A.N. Tiwari: In my understanding it would be entirely fallacious to hold that because of the presence of the RTI Act and the Rules , public authorities are completely barred from fixing the charges at which they would try to sell or disclose information. RTI Act enjoins that Public Authority could progressively bring more and more information into the public domain and authorize their disclosure. RTI Act, does not , at any place, say that such public authorities would be barred from placing any fee or price or a charge on the disclosure of the information brought by them into the public domain. In Registrar of Companies & Ors. versus Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ors. in WP © No. 11271/2009, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi of the Delhi High Court discussed in his decision dated 01.06.2012 as follows: The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. Therefore, commission decided that the statutory rules prescribed by any Public Authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly dismisses the instant Appeal while upholding the CPIO and AA’s decision. The Appellant was advised to pay the charges laid down for verification of details of PNR and obtain the information which may be provided by the PIO. Citation: CIC/SA/C/2014/000268 dated 07.07.2014 Dr. Jeet Singh Mann Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website or from here!
If RTI is a common man tool, there are always Risk of RTI too. Information which was clearly in the nature of personal information relating to the Passport of a lady got disclosed to a third party. The lady rightly got aggrieved because of this decision of the CPIO which resulted in Loss of Privacy due to RTI. Her husband was living in Canada since 7 September 2011 while his brother lived here in India. She alleged that the brother living in India had applied for information by faking the signature of her husband and the passport office had issued a notice to her under section 11 of the RTI Act before disclosing the information. She had objected to the disclosure but, in spite of that, the CPIO went ahead and disclosed not only the fact that her passport had been impounded but also some other personal details, like the copy of her schools certificate. The CIC also got concerned with this Risk of RTI. After hearing CIC recorded that "we find the decision of the CPIO highly problematic. Very rightly, he had issued a notice under section 11 when he received the application seeking details about the Appellant's passport. After he received the objection from the Appellant, he did not take it into account before finally deciding to disclose the information. As a result, some information which is clearly in the nature of personal information relating to the Appellant got disclosed to a third party. The Appellant is rightly aggrieved because of this decision of the CPIO." Risk of RTI "We think that the CPIO must show cause why we should not impose penalty on him for this indiscreet act in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, we direct the CPIO concerned to appear before us in the next date of hearing on 26 August 2013 at 11.30 a.m. and show cause for his decision resulting in the disclosure of third party information. We will decide on the penalty only after hearing his explanation." In our earlier article: RTI and Privacy- Are they two sides of the same coin? CPIO’s must deal with numerous issues: Should officers names and other details be considered private? Is information in public registers and muster rolls available for any use? Are court and criminal records public? Personal life—Information relating solely to a public employee’s personal life rather than to his or her public actions is one such place of RTI and Privacy come in conflict. There is also significant agreement that information about elected or high-rank public officials is less restricted, even when it relates to their personal lives. Governments and private organizations that collect information related to government services and obligations (including Income tax,medical details, criminal records (NCRB), and citizenship records (UIDIA, National Population Register) and identification technologies (including identity card systems,fingerprints, IRIS Scan, Video survullence) have quickly evolved and expanded. New communications technologies create and collect substantial records about individuals in the process of providing communications. Services run by governments and private operators collect information about individuals, including emails, records of persons communicated with, lists of Web sites visited,and mobile locations. And, of course, people share information through social networking sites. Here are the participating discussions at our forums: Click Here!