Jump to content
  • 0

Reasons in RTI Act .

Prasad GLN


Law framers might have suspected seeking reasons for information by PIO may impede the implementation and specifically stipulated that reasons are not required. Is the dictum that 100 criminals may escape punishment, but one innocent should not be punished is not applicable while taking larger public interest into consideration?


But, when genuine reasons are placed by several appellants before IC's which are genuine and valid, ICs (including HC) ignored the cited reasons stating that reasons should not be taken into account.

What was the exact relevance in mind of the law framing persons, while framing in RTI Act that reasons are not required? Whether IC/HC is considering the inherent purpose in their mind while deciding the issue?

(Disturbed by a decision by one IC where IC was extremely moved and empathized with appellant's (victim of 498) genuine stand for information but rejected it as reasons are not necessary in RTI, however genuine/valid it may be and ruled that there is no larger public interest in disclosure of Father in law's IT returns)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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