Jump to content
News Ticker
  • 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 'supremecourts'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS's FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION's ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Topics
  • MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS's MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS Topics
  • INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES's INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • AAKANKSHA's AAKANKSHA Topics
  • RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE's RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • JVG DUPED CUST.'s JVG DUPED CUST. Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • WEWANTJUSTICE's WEWANTJUSTICE Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS's MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA's ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • UN-DO CORRUPTION's UN-DO CORRUPTION Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • NATIONAL ISSUE's NATIONAL ISSUE Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • RTI BALLIA's RTI BALLIA Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.'s PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • AMICE (INDIA)'s AMICE (INDIA) Topics
  • HELPING HAND !'s HELPING HAND ! Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS's AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL's URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL Topics
  • RTI HELP INDIA's RTI HELP INDIA Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics

Categories

  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • BSNL & MTNL
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence

Categories

  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 6 results

  1. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment : Thalappalam Ser. Coop Bank Vs. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 The issue before the Court: Whether a co-operative society falls within the definition of "public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act. The observations of the Court: Para 37: “We often use the expressions “questions of law” and “substantial questions of law” and explain that any question of law affecting the right of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. In Black's Law Dictionary(6th Edn.), the word 'substantial' is defined as 'of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.' In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.' Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. It is closer to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context. Para 38. “Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.” The Court held that: Cooperative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the definition of "public Authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act unless they are substantially financed. The Court ruled that Cooperative Societies are not Public authorities covered in RTI unless they are substantially financed. It defined the word substantial finance thus: The Court after looking at the various dictionary meanings-‘material’, ‘important’, ‘of considerable value’, ‘not illusive’ decided that it means essential only, when it says, 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially' . It further said at para 38. “Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act. But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h)(d)(i)” Effectively this states that the finance must be essential to its functioning that it would struggle to exist without it. No Information provided. Our analysis of the judgment: The conclusion of the court that cooperative societies are not public authorities unless they are substantially financed is correct. However in defining the phrase ‘substantial finance’ it appears to have narrowed the scope of the RTI act by claiming that ‘substantial finance’ means ‘essential’ finance without which the body would struggle to exist. Thus even if a NGO or private body receives 100 crores annually it may not be deemed to be substantially financed if its total budget is around 500 crores and it argues that the amount from the Government is not essential for its working. The Court did not choose the words ‘material, important, of considerable value, not illusive’ which would have expanded the scope of the Act. Whereas its ruling that a Cooperative society does not automatically become a public authority appears right, its ruling on the words ‘substantial finance’ appears to constrict the ambit of the law, far more than what it should. satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
  2. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment : Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jaynatilal N. Mistry & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 525 This is a landmark judgement given by Apex Court on 16 December, 2015 and it must be included since it is the first clear pro-transparency judgement after the advent of the RTI Act. A bench of Justice M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan delivered the most significant judgment on the law and laid down standards of transparency in line with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. The apex court was hearing a batch of transferred petitions filed by various financial institutions and Banks against eleven decisions2 of the Central Information Commission. Since the issues were similar the eleven cases were transferred from the Bombay and Delhi High Courts to the Supreme Court. Eight had been filed by RBI, two by NABARD and one was filed by ICICI Bank. As per the RTI Act denial of information is permitted only if it falls in the ambit of Section 8 of the Act, or providing the information infringes copyright. A few organizations which are security and intelligence agencies specifically mentioned in the second schedule to the Act are completely exempted, unless the information sought relates to corruption or human rights violations. The Act is complete by itself and to obviate the possibility of any laws circumscribing this fundamental right of citizens, Section 22 states: “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” Insertion of a non- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence of Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well as the PIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. To understand this, two scenarios may be envisaged: 1. The existence of an earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information and is consistent with the RTI Act: Since there is no inconsistency between the law/ rule and the provisions of the RTI Act, the citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seek information in accordance with the said law/ rule or under the RTI Act. If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only; and 2. An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information but is inconsistent with the RTI Act: Where there is inconsistency between the law/rule and the RTI Act in terms of access to information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act lays down that it shall override the said law/ rule and the PIO would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI Act only. The Supreme Court has reinforced the correct position of the law. Section 8 of the RTI Act, which details information which can be denied states: 8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; information including commercial confidence, trade (d) secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign government; information, (g) of which would the disclosure 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 purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (i) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interests in disclosure outweigh the harm to the protected interests. (3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of subsection (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. The main points of information which were being denied in the matters before the court were: 1. Investigations and audit reports of banks by RBI 2. Warning or Advisory issued to Bank. 3. Minutes of meetings of governing board and directors 4. Details of Top defaulters. 5. Grading of banks In the instant case one of the grounds for denial was that information could not be disclosed as per the Banking Regulations Act. The other grounds on which refusal of information was justified was on the basis of Section 8(1) and the fact that the impugned judgments issued by a single member bench of the commission had disagreed with an earlier full bench decision taken by a four member bench. The single member bench had held the earlier decision per incuriam. It was argued by RBI that the single member bench was bound to follow the earlier decision of the full bench. RBI had claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the RTI Act and also argued that there was no larger public interest in disclosure and hence did not fulfil the requirement of Section 8(2). It had claimed that the economic interests of the state would be adversely affected by disclosure. It was also stated that the commercial interests of the banks would be affected. The most insistent claim for exemption was that the information was held by RBI and NABARD in a fiduciary relationship. The Apex court did not accept any of these grounds. It held in para 43: “The submission of the RBI that exceptions be carved out of the RTI Act regime in order to accommodate provisions of RBI Act and Banking Regulation Act is clearly misconceived. RTI Act, 2005 contains a clear provision (Section 22) by virtue of which it overrides all other Acts including Official Secrets Act. Thus, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law like RBI Act or Banking Regulation Act, the RTI Act, 2005 shall prevail insofar as transparency and access to information is concerned.” There have been many instances of PIOs,- including those of High Courts,- insisting that they will give information only on the basis of their regulations or earlier laws. This has now been settled the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has recorded the contention of RBI that the single member bench could not have given a ruling contrary to that of a four member full bench of the commission. It has however upheld the decision of the single member bench since the commissioner had given logical reasons to show how the full bench decision was per incuriam. This opens the way for information commissioners to interpret the law as per its letter and intent, instead of being tied down by earlier decisions given in ignorance of the law, provided a proper reasoning is given. On RBIs contention that disclosure would harm the nation’s economic interest the court upheld the commission’s ruling and echoed in para 61: “The baseless and unsubstantiated argument of the RBI that the disclosure would hurt the economic interest of the country is totally misconceived. In the impugned order, the CIC has given several reasons to state why the disclosure of the information sought by the respondents would hugely serve public interest, and non-disclosure would be significantly detrimental to public interest and not in the economic interest of India. RBI’s argument that if people, who are sovereign, are made aware of the irregularities being committed by the banks then the country’s economic security would be endangered, is not only absurd but is equally misconceived and baseless.” A claim is often made that information given to regulators and statutory authorities in discharge of statutory obligations is held in a fiduciary relationship and hence is exempt as per Section 8 (1)(e) of the Act. The information commission had rejected this claim on the ground that information provided in discharge of statutory requirements cannot be considered as being held in a fiduciary relationship. The Supreme Court has reinforced this by stating in paragraph 62: “where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the financial institutions have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and such information shared under an obligation/ duty cannot be considered to come under the purview of being shared in fiduciary relationship.” The Court has taken note of the obstructionist and secrecy wedded PIOs response to RTI applications. It has expressed its strong disapproval of denying the citizen’s fundamental right in paragraph 64: “it had long since come to our attention that the Public Information Officers (PIO) under the guise of one of the exceptions given under Section 8 of RTI Act, have evaded the general public from getting their hands on the rightful information that they are entitled to”. This should serve as a warning and wake up call to all PIOs, First appellate authorities and information commissioners. If information commissioners penalize PIOs who are using every innovative pretext to deny information, it would reduce the unhealthy practices being adopted to deny information. This is a landmark judgment and all those responsible for implementing the RTI Act must imbibe the letter and spirit of this. A very heartening impact of this judgment was seen within a fortnight when Mr. Raghuram Rajan the then RBI Governor in his New Year message to bank officers for the year 2016 said: “It has often been said that India is a weak state. Not only are we accused of not having the administrative capacity of ferreting out wrong doing, we do not punish the wrong-doer – unless he is small and weak. This belief feeds on itself. No one wants to go after the rich and well-connected wrongdoer, which means they get away with even more. If we are to have strong sustainable growth, this culture of impunity should stop. Importantly, this does not mean being against riches or business, as some would like to portray, but being against wrong-doing. …... there is a sense that we do not enforce compliance. Are we allowing regulated entities to get away year after year with poor practices even though these are noted during inspections/scrutinies? Should we become more intolerant of sloppy practices at regulated entities, so that these do not result in massive scams years later? Should we haul up accountants who do not flag issues they should detect? My sense is that we need a continuing conversation about tightening both detection as well as penalties for non-compliance throughout the hierarchy….. Finally, we are embedded in a changing community. What was OK in the past is no longer all right when the public demands transparency and better governance from public organisations. …. Transparency and good governance are ways to protect ourselves from roving enquiries – everyone should recognise that an effective regulator has enemies, and like Caesar’s wife, should be above all suspicion.” However within three months RBI started playing a different tune and again refusing information which latter RTI applications sought on the same matter. The Supreme Court has given a clear unambiguous judgment on the RTI Act specifically with respect to Section 8 (1) (a), (e) and section 22 of the Act. It has castigated those who deny information by using Section 8 (1) without justification. The then Governor of RBI has also responded positively and the writer has confirmation that information has been provided as per the CIC orders. We should build on this to bring transparent and accountable governance for our nation. RBI is no longer willing to abide by the judgment and a contempt petition has been filed against it. It is unfortunate that RBI is taking an arrogant position on transparency and has now come up with a Non-Disclosure policy which they are labeling as a ‘Disclosure Policy’. About the Authors: Shailesh Gandhi is a first generation entrepreneur and a Distinguished Alumnus awardee of IIT Bombay. He sold his company to become an RTI activist. Shailesh was part of the National RTI movement which was involved in drafting the National RTI Act. He was convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right To Information. He used RTI and also trained many citizens and government officials in over 1000 workshops to use it. He is perhaps the only RTI activist to have been chosen as a Central Information Commissioner. He disposed a record of over 20,000 cases in his tenure of 3 years and 9 months, and ensured that most cases were decided in less than 90 days. He gave many landmark decisions on RTI, apart from organizing the first digital paperless office in the Commission. He is now at his home in Mumbai to further and deepen RTI to empower citizens to take effective participatory charge of their democracy. He is also passionately pursuing the cause of evolving ways for a time bound justice delivery system, and improving governance systems. Amongst many awards, he has been awarded the Nani Palkhiwala Civil Liberties award, and the MR Pai award. Sandeep Jalan is an Advocate, practicing in Bombay High Court and also in Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. He writes extensively on various legal issues. He has developed a website / Legal Referencer vakeelkanumber.com wherein the pressing issues of our society have been identified, with all probable legal remedies which may be pursued, are suggested therein, and followed by articulate legal drafts and procedure. He also write Blogs. http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.in/ http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/ http://judgmentshighcourtsapexcourt.blogspot.in/ http://legaldraftsjalan.blogspot.in/ http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2011_001487_SG_15434_M_69675.pdf satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
  3. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment No: - Kerala Public Service Commission Versus State Information Commission AIR 2016 SC 711 Issue before the Court: In this case the question which arose was whether respondents are entitled to the scanned copies of their answer sheet, tabulation-sheet containing interview marks; and if they are entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet. Observation of Kerala High Court justifying the disclosure of identity of examiners Para 7: 17. We shall now examine the next contention of PSC that there is a fiduciary relationship between it and the examiners and as a consequence, it is eligible to claim protection from disclosure, except with the sanction of the competent authority, as regards the identity of the examiners as also the materials that were subjected to the examination. We have already approved TREESA and the different precedents and commentaries relied on therein as regards the concept of fiduciary relationship. We are in full agreement with the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science Studies (supra), that S.8 (1)(e) deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another; that information under this head is nothing but information in trust, which, but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. What is it that the PSC holds in trust for the examiners? Nothing. At the best, it could be pointed out that the identity of the examiners has to be insulated from public gaze, having regard to issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to corruption if the identities of the examiners are disclosed in advance. But, at any rate, such issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the publication of the results. Therefore, it would not be in public interest to hold that there could be a continued secrecy even as regards the identity of the examiners. Access to such information, including as to the identity of the examiners, after the examination and evaluation process are over, cannot be shied off under any law or avowed principle of privacy. Important observations of the Apex Court In so far as disclosure as to information about the information of answer sheets and details of the interview marks, the observations of the Apex Court are as under Para 6: So far as the information sought for by the respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of law and the same is fully justified. In so far as disclosure of names of examiners are concerned the observations of the Apex Court are as under Para 7: The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot be sustained in law. Para 8: We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of names of the examiners. Para 9: In the present case, the PSC has taken upon itself in appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principal-agent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by the PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between the PSC and the Examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we don t see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner s identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect to the second question. Shailesh Gandhi’s observation: The Supreme Court differed with the finding of the Kerala High Court and the commission that there was no fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examiners. In the CBSE judgment the apex court had given a finding that the examining body was not in a fiduciary relation either with the examiners or examinees. Yet in this case it faulted that finding of the High Court on this issue. It brought in a new element, contending “Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we don t see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner’ s identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest.” It appears that the apex court made its decisions guided by the thought that ‘the information seeker has no role to play in this’ and ‘revealing the examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public interest’. Specious grounds not justified by the law. There is some indication that the court felt that the examiner’s safety which could then have claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (g). There is no evidence in the judgment that this was urged before the commission or the High Court. The particular section does not find any mention even in the judgment. Also the probability of assaulting the examiners by examinees after obtaining their names using RTI is remote. It is also worth noting that the addresses of the examiners were not sought. I must also mention that the probable danger to the examiners is also too far fetched and the overall wording indicates a strong conviction that information must not be given. Sandeep Jalan’s Observation: In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of CBSE versus Aditya Bandopadhyay, the information as to copy of Answer sheets should have been provided instantly, and the issue should not have travelled to Apex Court again. This is how the PIOs and the Public Authorities play mischief by misreading or by brazenly ignoring the law laid down by the Apex Court. In so far disclosure of names of Examiners is concerned, the said information was denied by Apex Court on the premise of existence of fiduciary relationship and personal safety of Examiners. For the sake of clarity, let us revisit the two Apex Court rulings which dealt with the issue of fiduciary relationships, and what the Apex Court laid down as constituting the fiduciary relationship. The issue of existence of fiduciary relationship came up before Apex Court in the case of Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSE) Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay. In this case, the information sought was the copy of Answer sheets by the student himself who appeared in the examination conducted by CBSE. CBSE refused information on the premise that it is holding information in a fiduciary capacity and stands exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. For better understanding of the issue at hand, the three entities are first be properly defined. The Examining Body is the CBSE which conducts the Examination. The Examinee is the student who takes up the examination. The Examiner is the person to whom the Examining Body entrusts the work of evaluating the Answer sheets of the Examinee student. In the aforesaid case of CBSE, the Apex Court in Para 26 said in essence said that Examining Body and the Examinee do not share any fiduciary relationship between themselves; and assuming that they share such relationship, the information cannot be denied to the examinee who is in fact the beneficiary under such purported fiduciary relationship; and in such supposition, the information can only be denied to third party and not to the beneficiary. In so far existence of fiduciary relationship between the Examining Body and the Examiner is concerned, the Apex Court also discarded the existence of any such fiduciary relationship between them; and further said that such fiduciary relationship is temporary for the period when the Examiner holds the custody of the Answer-sheets for the purpose of evaluation; and the moment the evaluation is over and Answer-sheets are returned to the Examining Body, such relationship ceased to exist. In CBSE judgment, in so far as disclosure of names of Examiners is concerned, the Apex Court said that their names cannot be disclosed to the Examinee, on the premise that such disclosure may endanger the personal safety of the Examiner. In Para 28, the Court said: When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the examining body. Similarly the examiner also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answerbooks are evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, co-ordinator, and headexaminer who deal with the answer book. Therefore, the disclosure of names of Examiners were refused u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(g). Exemption from disclosure of information -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (g) information, the disclosure of 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 purposes; The issue whether there exist fiduciary relationship again came up in RBI case (Judgment No.16 hereinabove), wherein in Para 62, the Apex Court in the most unambiguous terms said that However, where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. The essence of these aforesaid two judgments is that – Examining Body and the Examiner do not share fiduciary relationship between them; and even if such fiduciary relationship exist, it is temporary for the period when the Examiner holds the custody of the Answer-sheets for the purpose of evaluation; and the moment the evaluation is over and Answer-sheets are returned to the Examining Body, such relationship ceased to exist; and where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. In the present case, the stand of the Apex Court that there exists a fiduciary relationship between PSC (Examining Body) and the Examiners, is patently inconsistent with the law laid down by Apex Court in CBSE and RBI case. However in so far disclosure of names of Examiners is concerned, the Apex Court refused the same, on the premise that “the information seeker has no role to play in this and we don t see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner s identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest”. The shortcoming in the immediate aforesaid observation is that said grounds of refusal was not supported by mandate of law, whereas the mandate of law is that if there is any exemption from disclosure of information, it has to strictly fall within any of the clauses of section 8 of the RTI Act, and no other information should be withhold. Nevertheless, it escaped the minds of the Apex Court that Section 8(1)(g) could have been invoked to deny said information (names of Examiners). In the case of CBSE, the Apex Court although said that there is no fiduciary relationship between the Examining Body and the Examiners, the Court refused disclosure of names of Examiners u/s 8(1)(g), i.e. personal safety of Examiners. In the same breath, it may be stated that the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court for the disclosure of information, is rational, and quite sustainable in law. I am sure Section 8(2) can aid in resolving this conflict. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act provides that the concerned Public Authority may disclose information inspite of applicability of any of the exemptions enumerated in clauses of Section 8(1), if the concerned Public Authority, whilst balancing the conflicting interests, holds that there is larger public interest in disclosure of information. About the Authors: Shailesh Gandhi is a first generation entrepreneur and a Distinguished Alumnus awardee of IIT Bombay. He sold his company to become an RTI activist. Shailesh was part of the National RTI movement which was involved in drafting the National RTI Act. He was convener of the National Campaign for People’s Right To Information. He used RTI and also trained many citizens and government officials in over 1000 workshops to use it. He is perhaps the only RTI activist to have been chosen as a Central Information Commissioner. He disposed a record of over 20,000 cases in his tenure of 3 years and 9 months, and ensured that most cases were decided in less than 90 days. He gave many landmark decisions on RTI, apart from organizing the first digital paperless office in the Commission. He is now at his home in Mumbai to further and deepen RTI to empower citizens to take effective participatory charge of their democracy. He is also passionately pursuing the cause of evolving ways for a time bound justice delivery system, and improving governance systems. Amongst many awards, he has been awarded the Nani Palkhiwala Civil Liberties award, and the MR Pai award. Sandeep Jalan is an Advocate, practicing in Bombay High Court and also in Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. He writes extensively on various legal issues. He has developed a website / Legal Referencer vakeelkanumber.com wherein the pressing issues of our society have been identified, with all probable legal remedies which may be pursued, are suggested therein, and followed by articulate legal drafts and procedure. He also write Blogs. http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.in/ http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/ http://judgmentshighcourtsapexcourt.blogspot.in/ http://legaldraftsjalan.blogspot.in/ Source: - satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
  4. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment : Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gourhari Kamila (2014) 13 SCC 653 Issue before the Court: The applicant had sought the following information for an Interview conducted by UPSC which had been denied: a) How many years of experience in the relevant field (Analytical methods and research in the field of Ballistics) mentioned in the advertisement have been considered for the short listing of the candidates for the interview held for the date on 16.3.2010? b)Kindly provide the certified xerox copies of experience certificates of all the candidates called for the interview on 16.3.2010 who have claimed the experience in the relevant field as per records available in the UPSC and as mentioned by the candidates at Sl.No.10(B) of Part-I of their application who are called for the interview held on 16.3.2010. The CIC decided in favour of disclosure and asked UPSC to disclose the information. UPSC challenged this order and the single judge and the division bench of the High Court dismissed UPSC’s petition. The Apex Court quoted the earlier order of CBSE (Judgement 1) as follows: “We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer books, that come into the custody of the examining body.” And again at para 27: “We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Nor being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books.” The Court held that: “By applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, (CBSE case) we hold that the CIC committed a serious illegality by directing the Commission to disclose the information sought by the respondent at point Nos. 4 and 5 and the High Court committed an error by approving his order.” Our analysis of the judgment: In para 23 in the CBSE judgement the Supreme Court had held: “It cannot therefore be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship either with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer-books are evaluated by the examining body.” In the CBSE judgement the Supreme Court had clearly come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. After this the Court had made an assumption to examine that even if it were held in a fiduciary relationship it should still be disclosed. It said: “24. We may next consider whether an examining body would be entitled to claim exemption under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee.” In this case a clear finding that there was no fiduciary relationship has been turned upside down to give it a contrary meaning. It is not clear why the court made such an assumption in the CBSE case. But in this UPSC case the assumption made in the earlier case by the court has been taken as a ratio and the actual finding junked! satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
  5. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment : Karnataka Information Commissioner Vs. PIO (HC) - Unreported Judgment About the case: A RTI applicant requested the Karnataka High Court for certified copies of some information/documents regarding guidelines and rules pertaining to scrutiny and classification of writ petitions and the procedure followed by the Karnataka High Court in respect of Writ Petition Nos.26657 of 2004 and 17935 of 2006. The PIO refused the information on the grounds that the applicant should seek the information under the Karnataka High Court rules. When the matter went to the State Information Commission it disagreed with the PIO and ordered the information to be provided under the RTI Act. The Commission’s order was challenged by the PIO in the Karnataka High Court which named the applicant as a respondent in the case and the Karnataka High Court set aside the Commission’s order. The Commission challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the petition was filed by an Information Commissioner. The Court took offense to the petition being filed by an Information Commissioner and said that the Commission and Commissioner have no locus standi and were wasting public money by challenging the order. In a harsh snub it imposed a cost of Rs. 100000 on the Commission. Our analysis of the judgement: It is worth mentioning that the Supreme Court itself had accepted the Chief Information Commissioner (Manipur) in judgement 2 hereinbefore as the Petitioner. Many High Courts name the Commission as party in many petitions which challenge the decision of an Information Commission. Hence the Supreme Court taking umbrage at the commission approaching it as a petitioner does not appear to be correct. More importantly, the important matter of Section 22 which gives an overriding effect to the RTI Act, was not addressed at all, and was brushed aside. This harsh snub by the Supreme Court has silenced the Information Commissions into not questioning the Courts, but becoming intellectually subservient to them. If the apex court snubs statutory authorities in such a manner it harms the rule of law, since such authorities suffer loss of respect which they require to enforce the law. Section 22 states that “the provisions of this RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act”. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non-obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was to safeguard the citizens’ fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other laws and rules adopted by public authorities to deny information. This section simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well as the PIO. Citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act if they desire to. By its order in the case of the Karnataka Commission, the Supreme Court, without addressing the provision of Section 22, sanctified and legitimized denial of information under Right to Information, if any public authority claims there are any other rules for giving information. This ruling has neutralised Section 22 of the RTI Act without any proper reasoning or discussion. Besides it appears to be contrary to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement at para 18 in the CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case quoted above where it had held, ““Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the byelaws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations.” Surely the rules of the Court cannot be treated differently. satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
  6. Critical Analysis of Supreme Court Judgements on the RTI Act, 2005 By Shailesh Gandhi, Former Central Information Commissioner Judgment : R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India JT 2013 (10) SC 430 The issue before the Court: The information requested was inspection of adverse confidential remarks against ‘integrity’ of a member of Tribunal and follow up actions taken on issue of integrity. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Section 8 (1) (j). The Court held that: Inter alia relying upon the ruling made in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j). read with section 11 of the RTI Act. Para 13”…. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer intends to disclose any such information or record on a request made under the Act, in such case after written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to such request or if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.” Our analysis of the judgment: Section 11 (1) is quoted hereunder: SECTION 11: Third-party information: (1) “Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.” (emphasis supplied by us) The Supreme Court appears to have given an interpretation to Section 11 which does not appear to be justified by the words of the Act. Section 11 is not an exemption but only a procedural provision to safeguard the interests of the third party. The Court’s statement above implies that if third party objects to the disclosure of information, it can only be given if there is a larger public interest in disclosure. It may clearly be understood that denial of information in RTI Act can only be done under Section 8 or 9 as clearly mentioned in Section 7 (1). In Section 8 (1) the need to show a larger public interest arises only when an exemption under Section 8 (1) applies. The Act states that when a PIO ‘intends to disclose’ information regarding third party which third party has treated as confidential, he shall intimate the third party that he intends to disclose the information. The PIO can only decide to disclose the information if he comes to the conclusion that it is not exempt. The law states that ‘submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information’. The PIO can only deny information as per the provisions of the exemptions of Section 8 (1) or 9. The RTI Act does not give veto power to the third party, but provides it with an opportunity to raise his legitimate objections, and if the PIO is convinced that the information is exempt, he may change his earlier decision to disclose by denying the information as per the provision of Section 8 (1) or Section 9. In case the PIO does not agree that the information is exempt, he should decide to disclose the information and reject the third party’s objection. In such an event the concerned third party may prefer an Appeal against the decision of the PIO, as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) to 11 (4). These express provisions 11(2) to 11(4) make it clear that the third party is not rendered remediless, in cases where PIO disagrees with the third party’s objection in disclosure of information. Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act clearly states that denial of information can only be based on Section 8 or 9. Section 3 states that ‘Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the Right to Information.’ Thus the denial of any information can only be on the basis of the RTI Act where only Section 8 and 9 detail the information which can be denied. The Court has raised the procedure of Section 11 to that of an exemption of Section 8 (1). This judgement is an erroneous reading of Section 11. Information was denied, partly depending on Girish Deshpande judgement where there was no ratio decidendi, and a flawed interpretation of Section 11. It also does not address the earlier R. Rajagopal judgment. satyamevajayate.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Analysis-of-Supreme-Court-judgments-on-RTI.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy