Jump to content
News Ticker

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'third party'.



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 66 results

  1. Bengaluru resident T Narsimha Murthy had moved an application under the RTI Act on April 10, seeking information that who all came to meet Salman in the jail during his judicial custody from April 5 to 7 after his conviction by the trial court in the blackbuck poaching case. Instead of providing information to the applicant, the jail administration sought permission from Salman, asking him of his opinion! Justifying the move, DIG (jails) Vikram Singh said since the information pertained to a third party, the jail administration required to have his permission before providing the same to the applicant. "Since the information sought by the applicant belonged to a third party , we have sought his (Salman's) permission", Singh said. Prima Facie, the information does not seem to be third party information and could have been given in larger public interest. What are your views?
  2. The National Board of Examinations, which regulates almost 7,000 post-graduate medical seats, mostly in private hospitals, has refused to share inspection reports of hospitals on the basis of which seats were granted. In its response to RTI applications, the NBEstated that it had asked the hospitals if information pertaining to them could be given to a third party but the hospitals had refused. The Medical Council of India (MCI), which regulates roughly 28,000 PG seats, in contrastputs all inspection reports on its website. Since post graduateseats regulated by NBE are equivalent to those regulated by MCI and both bodies essentially perform the same function, it is not clear why NBE cannot also put this information in the public domain. Asked why they had refused to part with this information, NBEofficials told TOI that its assessment reports also included employment contracts of hospitals with faculty members and income tax details of the faculty along with pan number, which areconfidential and could not be shared. Asked why such information alone could not be kept confidential while revealing the assessment reports, they claimed the relevant assessment documents, list of assessors and other details would be put up on the new website once it becomes operational by June end. Yet, the NBErefused this information to RTI applicants.
  3. The information sought under the Right to Information was refused on the grounds that it was available with the NBE in a "fiduciary capacity" and could not be divulged without consent from the hospitals. The National Board of Examinations, which regulates almost 7,000 post-graduate medical seats, mostly in private hospitals, has refused to share inspection reports of hospitals on the basis of which seats were granted. In its response to RTI applications, the NBEstated that it had asked the hospitals if information pertaining to them could be given to a third party but the hospitals had refused. The Medical Council of India (MCI), which regulates roughly 28,000 PG seats, in contrastputs all inspection reports on its website. Since post graduateseats regulated by NBE are equivalent to those regulated by MCI and both bodies essentially perform the same function, it is not clear why NBE cannot also put this information in the public domain. Asked why they had refused to part with this information, NBEofficials told TOI that its assessment reports also included employment contracts of hospitals with faculty members and income tax details of the faculty along with pan number, which areconfidential and could not be shared. Asked why such information alone could not be kept confidential while revealing the assessment reports, they claimed the relevant assessment documents, list of assessors and other details would be put up on the new website once it becomes operational by June end. Yet, the NBErefused this information to RTI applicants. View full entry
  4. Instead of providing information to the applicant, the jail administration sought permission from Salman, asking him of his opinion. "Since the information sought by the applicant belonged to a third party , we have sought his (Salman's) permission" Bengaluru resident T Narsimha Murthy had moved an application under the RTI Act on April 10, seeking information that who all came to meet Salman in the jail during his judicial custody from April 5 to 7 after his conviction by the trial court in the blackbuck poaching case. Instead of providing information to the applicant, the jail administration sought permission from Salman, asking him of his opinion! Justifying the move, DIG (jails) Vikram Singh said since the information pertained to a third party, the jail administration required to have his permission before providing the same to the applicant. "Since the information sought by the applicant belonged to a third party , we have sought his (Salman's) permission", Singh said. Prima Facie, the information does not seem to be third party information and could have been given in larger public interest. What are your views? View full entry
  5. Whenever 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
  6. Can I ask information of salary, post held, duty hours, CCTV footage etc. of a govt. Employee. Is this information fall in the category of 3rd party info. Is there any chances of denial of information and under which rule of rti they can deny it. If above info is denied then under which rule I can challenge it.
  7. Respected members, I'm stuck in a bit of issue and hoping you could help me out here. Firstly, i'm not in the country and need to show evidence of my license, i.e. it's genuine. Unfortunately, my license details aren't available online and emails and phone calls to local RTO have gone unanswered. I'm trying to file a RTI to get this information. However, the caveat to my situation is that: 1) The information needs to be directly sent to a government agency here in Australia or 2) Sent via some kind of postal service that shows evidence that it was sent from a government agency in India What's the best way to go about this? How to ensure that it is sent overseas as well as sent in a format that ensures authenticity of the origin of the document? Thank you in advance
  8. On a second appeal hearing filed in reference to leakages of Confidential Data filed by the Tax Payer, it was observed that maintaining the privacy, the record keeping in the public authority as explained by the Income Tax Department was in an outdated format and not upgraded utilizing the modern technological tools. Commission after considering the gravity and seriousness of the issues raised by the Appellant, found that there is an emergent requirement to investigate the root cause of the leakages of Confidential Data filed by the Tax Payers and plug the loopholes forthwith. The commission asked Pr. CCIT to investigate the matter considering that it is essential to protect the Confidential Financial Data filed by millions of Tax Payers from falling into wrong hands in the larger public interest. Income Tax records are in outdated format The Appellant Mr. Badal Satapathy stated during the hearing that his income tax returns for several years were provided to the Third Party without his consent. It was submitted that he had brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by submitting documentary evidence about few serious threats/ loopholes in their computerized data storage system, leveraging which few scrupulous employees of the department were selling highly confidential financial data of Indian Citizens/ Tax Payers to third parties without the knowledge of the tax payer or any Court Orders. The decision can be downloaded here: Badal Satapathy-Income-tax-rti For any queries relating to Right to Information, kindly visit our forums.
  9. [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
  10. mark selvaraj

    Rti 3rd party

    Hi, I have asked for few documents under rti. But the PIO in his reply states that it is 3rd party info & he is asking me the 3rd party address. So if the information sought is 3rd party then the pio shoud find the 3rd party address or i should give him the address.
  11. First 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!)
  12. 'Own records are not third party information.' Central Information Commission objected to Public Information Officer interpretation that asking for information about self through RTI is Personal information and is exempt under Section-8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The PIO had rejected the application on the grounds that information about own file is third party information under RTI Act and cannot be disclosed. CIC directed that PIO needs to understand that section 8 (1) (J) applies only in those cases wherein the information is sought by a third party, in the present case the information seeker is seeking her own information and in such cases the exemption cannot be applied. Own records are not third party The applicant Probation period was extended without her knowledge and she requested to know why. However, Public Information Officer denied the information. CIC decided in her favour and directed that exemption under Section-8(1)(j) cannot be applied for claiming exemption when the information is sought by the employee himself/herself. The decision can be read here!
  13. Without Disclosure of objections of the third-party information, the appellant cannot make an informed judgement about challenging the Appellate Authority (AA) decision. Denying the RTI Applicant the requested information will mean handicapping him in exercising his legal right. A decision not to disclose the information to the petitioner in view of the objections of the third-party is itself justiciable. CIC noted that: The petitioner has every right to question the decision of the CPIO or the AA about not disclosing a third-party related information ― a right which cannot be discharged unless the full facts about the reason for objection by the third-party is disclosed to the petitioner. Disclosure of objections of the third-party is a right It is to be noted that the third-party procedure to be followed under the RTI Act is governed, among others, by Section 11(1) of the Act. A public authority is required to consult the third-party, who might have provided the information in confidence to the public authority, and then make a determination about disclosure of the information especially in the context of the exemptions in Section 8(1) as spelt-out in Section 11(3) of the Act. The decision of the CPIO is to be communicated to the third-party. A reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the RTI Act makes it clear that a procedure about consulting the third-party in writing is to be followed in a matter which is covered by these sub-sections of Section 11. It is also clear that the only reason why a third-party related information cannot be disclosed to a petitioner is the fact that the third-party objects to the disclosure and that the CPIO / AA accede to those objections and decline to disclose the information to the petitioner. A decision not to disclose the information to the petitioner in view of the objections of the third-party is itself justiciable. The CIC decided that objections of the third-party, should be disclosed to the applicant. The decision can be read here and the related decision here! You can read more decisions and related discussions on Third Party here!
  14. In 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.
  15. Mr. S.C. Agarwal in his RTI application sought copies of communication made between the PMO and DoPT about IFS officer Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Commission by its Order had directed MoEFCC to provide point­wise information. Further, S.C. Agarawal in his RTI appeal stated that his RTI is concerned with larger public interest in constitutional governance and zero­ tolerance of corruption, and thus more information was allowed by CIC. Central Information Commission had directed the PMO to apply the doctrine of severability, while disclosing information of inter­departmental notes to the appellant, i.e., avoiding information which cannot be disclosed and provide the information about Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Meanwhile, Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the IFS officer, whose name appeared in the RTI application filed an application stating that he came to know from media report that an order has been passed by CIC with respect to CBI investigation into Haryana Forestry Scam, in an appeal filed by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal against M/o Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Mr. Sanjiv claimed that the matter was very vital for his career and thus he should be permitted to intervene in the matter. Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi submitted that the opinion furnished by the DoPT to the appellant would have a serious implication on his career. Sanjiv Chaturvedi asserts himself as third party The Commission has now in turn given notice to PMO, DoPT and Mr. S.C. Agarwal to explain why Mr. Chaturvedi should not be permitted to participate in this case as third party to defend his interest. The decision is available here to view and download: CIC_SA_A_2015_000525_T_177558 You may be interested in reading more about 'Third Party' at our wiki. Here are more articles on third Party under RTI MLC can be disclosed after applying third party clause Unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party No third party exemption on discrimination What satisfaction must be arrived at prior to disclosure of information to third party? RTI for Ration Card – Third Party Information under Larger Public Interest Vigilance proceedings against a third party Read all articles tagged with 'Third Party"
  16. [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.
  17. 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)
  18. 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!
  19. Medico 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!
  20. Name and Educational Qualification can never be considered as private information. Address of an applicant in certain context can be protected from disclosure where security issues are raised. This was stated by Central Information Commission in one of its latest decision. The appellant had pleaded that when an applicant gives an application along with certain details which are required for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, then it cannot be considered as private information. It is the duty of authority to explain why particular application is considered while others are rejected, when a case is taken up naturally and why others are put in cold storage. Name and Educational Qualification PIO had denied information saying that information sought contains personal details of other applicants. The Commission finds that the concerned section has deliberately suppressing information by raising unnecessary excuses and directed the PIO to give all the details. The decision can be read here!
  21. Central 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!
  22. [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
  23. Hello, We filed our first RTI to NOIDA Authority seeking information regarding one of the housing project. We were seeking copies of layout plans approved by authority for a private builder. Now authority replied after 30 days (Aug 8th, 2013) stating that this is third party information and a letter is being sent to third party for appeal/NOC. Additionally authority did not reply to 3 of RTI applications out of 6 that we had filed. We are o the edge of unearthing a major scam in Noida and we know they are deliberately trying not to provide us information. Attached is the RTI reply in image : My question to all experts here are: 1) Do you think layout plans approved by authority for a private builder is third party information? 2) How much time can they really take replying to our application? 3) As NOIDA has not replied to 3 of our applications, what should be our action plan? Please suggest if this query should have been posted in another thread as i am a novice here and in RTI world too.
  24. RTI applicant wife filed complaints against the RTI applicant in not one but two police stations. The Puducherry police refused to give the copy of a complaint by the appellants wife and inquiry report, on grounds of physical safety, by invoking exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. Central Information Commission while hearing the case recorded that "as to how the physical danger to the wife’s safety is enhanced by the appellant knowing the contents of her complaint, since the substance of her charges is already known through the contents of the complaint filed in another police station made available to him through another RTI Application". If you want to file RTI Online, do read our guide on how to file RTI online here! Further, CIC observed that "Since the inquiry by Puducherry Police is over and the Complainant is signatory to the letter by the both parties for approaching the family court, due to which inquiry was closed- clearly strengthens his claim to get a copy of the documents. The inquiry is also not required in other cases." Marital Disputes and RTI Section 8(1) (g) The Commission did not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed SP & PIO of UT of Pondicherry to provide the information sought in the RTI. Earlier Shri V. Ayyappan, the RTI Appellant sought a copy of the complaint, filed against him by his wife in the Police station at Puducherry with the copy of enquiry report and copies of the statements given. PIO on 24.10.2012 refused to give information stating therein that the information could not be provided under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the same may endanger the life or physical safety of the appellant’s wife who resides in Puducherry. The case citation can be downloaded from the CIC website here: V. Ayyappan Vs SP UT of Pondicherry 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!
  25. The Patient has a right to detailed medical records and Hospital Authorities have a duty to provide the same under Right to Information Act, 2005, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Medical Council Act and world medical ethics. The Central Information Commission recommended Public Authority of Hospital to develop a time frame mechanism of disclosure of medical records to patients or their relatives with safeguards for privacy and confidentiality of the patient. Extending principle derived from Articles 21 and 19 of our Constitution, a consumer of medical services too has a right to know what treatment was given to him/her, what were the reports of diagnostic tests, what were the opinions expressed by doctors or specialists, why he/she was kept in hospital etc. Consumer’s right to information extends both to the products and services, including medical service. Right to detailed medical records The Medical Council of India has imposed an obligation on Hospitals as per the regulations notified on 11th March 2002, amended up to December 2010 to maintain the medical record and provide patient access to it. 1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours. Hon’ble Kerala High Court recognizing the above principle in Rajappan Vs. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science and Technology [iLR2004(2)Kerala150] had observed that It is also to be noticed that Regulations do not provide any immunity for any medical record to be retained by any medical practitioner of the hospital from being given to the patient. On the other hand it is expressly provided that a patient should be given medical records in Appendix 3 with supporting documents. Therefore in the absence of any immunity either under the Regulations or under any other law, the respondent­ Hospital is bound to give photocopies of the entire documents of the patient. There should be absolute transparency with regard to the treatment of a patient and a patient or victim's relative is entitled to get copies of medical records. After making a detailed examination, Central Information Commission holds that the patient has a right to detailed medical records about treatment under Section 3 of the RTI Act and also under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Is it “life and liberty” issue? The Commission holds that information regarding medical records especially when patient is disputing her stay and treatment is concerning life and liberty of the appellant. Whether claim of Sec 8 (1)(h) exception valid? It is mandatory for the public authority to show that the disclosure of the information would in fact, impede the process of investigation. During the hearing at CIC, neither the PIO nor the Appellate Authority tried to substantiate points as to how the disclosure of her own medical record would hamper the process of investigation. They did not even attempt to explain what the charge against her was and what investigation was pending. An empty claim of exception under section 8(1)(h) cannot entitle the authority to refuse the information for which the appellant has right both under Right to Information Act, 2005 and Consumer Protection Act 1986. In view of the above, this Commission did not accept the contention of the respondent authority that the information sought by the appellant was exempt under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as this is with reference to the appellant’s life and liberty, who was kept in detention by the respondent/institute and she has every right to have the information about the treatment meted out to her during her detention in the respondent/institute. It is not third party information. More so, the respondent/institute cannot invoke the ground of exemption under section 8(1)(h), as there is no evidence to show that any inquiry pending against the appellant. The Public Authority being an Institute/hospital has a legal responsibility to share the information about her treatment and medical check up etc. The Commission was of the view that the patient’s right to obtain his medical record is not only protected under RTI Act, but also under the regulation of Indian Medical Council, which is based on world medical ethics, and also as a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as explained above. It is the duty of the doctor/Hospital to develop a mechanism whereby the copy of patients medical record from his joining to his discharge be provided to him or his legal representative even without him asking as a matter of routine procedure at the time of discharge as directed by Bombay High Court in above referred case. The Commission exercising its powers under Section 25(5) of RTI Act, recommended the Public Authority IHBAS to develop a mechanism for disclosure of medical records to patients or his relatives in a time frame with proper protection to confidentiality and privacy as ordained by RTI Act, preferably in the lines of judgment of Bombay High Court. The Commission recommends that when a patient or his near relative demands from the Hospital or the doctor the copies of the case papers, it is necessary for the Hospital authorities and the doctors concerned to furnish copies of such case papers to the patient or his near relative. The case citation can be read here: Ms.Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Institute of HB&AS, GNCTD, File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001681­SA dated 23­-07­-2014 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!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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