- 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 8 (1) (j)'.
Found 5 results
rtiindia posted a post in CIC DecisionsThe information about his wife income tax documents probing for the alleged income and expenditure during the wedding was denied under RTI. However, as his wife has filed FIR under section 498A/406 IPC, Delhi High court allowed access to the document considering that as the criminal proceeding filed by the wife is still pending and her cross-examination is not complete, the husband can cross examine her with regard to her income-tax returns and/or the husband can file an appropriate application for production of the relevant income tax records. The information sought by the Husband in reference to wife income tax documents regarding action taken report in reference to his letter was rejected on the ground that information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act, 2005’). The decision of the high court can be read from our wiki segment here! Wife income tax documents Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the information sought is crucial for the adjudication in the aforesaid criminal case pending against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Anr. Vs. Bhagat Singh and Anr. in LPA No.1377/2007 decided on 17th December, 2007, wherein it has been held as under:- “………..It is for the appellant to show how and why investigation will be impeded by disclosing information to the appellant. General statements are not enough. Apprehension should be based on some ground or reason. Information has been sought for by the complainant and not the assessed. Nature of information is not such which interferes with the investigation or helps the assessed. Information may help the respondent No. 1 from absolving himself in the criminal trial. It appears that the appellant has held back information and delaying the proceedings for which the respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved and filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court. We also find no reason as to why the aforesaid information should not be supplied to the respondent No. 1. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the appellant is ready and willing to disclose all the records once the same is summoned by the criminal court where proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are pending. If that is the stand of the appellant, we find no reason as to why the aforesaid information cannot be furnished at this stage as the investigation process is not going to be hampered in any manner and particularly in view of the fact that such information is being furnished only after the investigation process is complete as far as Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is concerned. It has not been explained in what manner and how information asked for and directed will hamper the assessment proceedings.”
rtiindia posted a post in CIC DecisionsWhen an RTI Applicant sought information from National Bal Bhawan on enquiry report/orders of the two member committee inquiry about the purchase of 100 ACs for the National Bal Bhavan and the related electrical works First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied information on the grounds that it is exempted under RTI Act, the same is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it is personal information and disclosure of which is not in larger public interest. Read more about what is Privacy under RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) declined to accept the contentions of the Respondent authority and directs them to furnish the 2 Member Inquiry report and other information sought by the appellant. The fact of the case is as under: The appellant filed the RTI application seeking copy of enquiry report/orders of the two member committee inquiry into the procurement of Air Conditioners and execution of civil work and electrical work in National Bal Bhawan and JBB, Mandi along with copy of action taken report, noting etc. on it by Ministry of HRD – Vigilance Wing. The CPIO transferred the matter to the Director, National Bal Bhawan for necessary action. The appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) and the FAA denied information on the grounds that it is exempted under RTI Act as it is personal information and disclosure of which is not in larger public interest. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a second appeal before this Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The decision can be read from here!
While hearing the 2nd appeal, Central Information Commission decided that disclosure of information in relation to unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party. The commission retreated that in a number of decisions, the CIC has held that when appellant seeks the sanctioned building plan of any third party, public authority should provide the (horizontal) sanction plan(s) of the properties of the Third Party by omitting the internal room arrangements in the plan(s). The external walls with openings and projections should be shown along with the Area Statement for all the floors which has been approved/ regularised. If you want to file RTI online, do read our guide here on how to file RTI Online. Earlier NDMC has denied information by invoking section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act on the ground that the sanctioned building plan and other information sought in the RTI application is personal, while the Appellant stated that due to the unauthorised construction, extensive damage was caused to his house. Appellant further stated that the house was inspected by a highly qualified Structural Engineer (M. Tech in Structural Engineering) at his request by the Institution of Engineers (India), who opined “The cracking of roof slab has seriously affected the safety of the house. The structural cracks are expected to widen further or new cracks may develop if the earth under the foundation is not yet fully settled, thus making the building at A-1/9 more unsafe. These cracks may be disastrous in the event of an earthquake. The building itself may collapse. The ideal solution would be to demolish and reconstruct the affected portion of the building at A-1/9 which is indeed cumbersome and very costly. Repairs may be attempted by injection grouting with non shrink cement grout by the experts in the field”. The appellant is aggrieved as his house is damaged because of construction on a neighbouring plot and is seeking compensation for the same. Unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party The Commission directs the respondent to provide complete information in relation to Unauthorized construction and encroachment. As regards to the sanctioned building plan, the Commission directs the respondent to provide to the appellant the (horizontal) sanction plan(s) of the properties of the Third Party by omitting the internal room arrangements in the plan(s). The external walls with openings and projections should be shown along with the Area Statement for all the floors which has been approved/ regularised. The Commission also directed PIO, EE (B-II) and PIO, EE (B-I) /CLZ of NDMC to submit Written Submissions, latest by 5th September, 2014, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, for not providing the information within the prescribed period under the RTI Act. CIC further recorded that: The Appellant has clearly been harassed and has had to file the first and second appeal completely unnecessarily. Because of the inept handling of this RTI Application this has occurred. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is abhorring and legally impermissible. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness and specially when a senior citizen is the victim. Many instead of complaining would succumb in such circumstances. Therefore the award of compensation in such cases is called for in the interest of justice. The Commission awards compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Appellant under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in getting the information. The case citation is available here: Maj. Gen. Baldev Kumar Vs NDMC 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!
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!
rtiindia posted a post in For Common ManCentral Information Commission came down heavily on RTI applicant for filing several frivolous and repeated applications with sole aim of harassing his wife without caring whether any public loss is being caused in the process. "he has misused RTI to run a parallel trial along with the trial in courts of law."- CIC More importantly, however, was the observation that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) disclosed information about his wife without applying the third party clause as under Section 8 (1) (j) that prohibits the private information not related to any public activity. Earlier also we have brought this issue on our blogs, you can read them here! The RTI applicant has sought details of Notary Register of his wife. On the first appeal against the CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs, First Appellate Authority (FAA) gave the decision to disclose the information.The FAA noted that notary is the third party, but did not ask CPIO to follow the procedure to obtain views of the third party, Notary. Strangely the FAA has ignored the fact that it was not just the Notary, but the wife of appellant and owner of the house who leased are also third parties. More over information about the rental agreement between the wife of appellant and some other person has nothing to do with general public. The notary extract about that private transaction, fee paid to notary and receipt for fee is also not concerned with any public activity. Only when there is a complaint that notary is extracting huge amount from clients, seeking the copy of receipt, could be a considered to have relation with the public activity. CIC noted that the private information of persons unconnected with public cannot be ordered to be disclosed. Especially when a husband, being an accused and respondent in several criminal and civil cases, filed by his wife, is repeatedly misusing the RTI to extend harassment to court officers and the Commission also, then, the exempting provisions of information law cannot be ignored. Except extract of notary register, which is a public document, nothing can be given to the petitioner. If notary register deals with a transaction between two private persons, that also will be a private information if it does not relate to public activity. The Decision can be read 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!