Jump to content
  • 0

RTI Application filed by email


Ravi Ahuja

Question

Ravi Ahuja

1. Can a application be filed through email?

2. Can the E IPO filed alongwith the application be held to be valid?

3. Can the PIO be asked to supply information in digital format as attachments under the signature and seal of the public authority?

4. Can the pretext of shortage of staff, be ground to delay the supply of information sought?

5. Can the argument that the PIO is on leave be a reasonable ground to delay information.

6. Does the duty of the APIO or PIO fall in the gambit of Essential Services of a given Public Authority?

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

1.Yes.  As RTI Act permits filing electronically, but should be followed by duly signed hardcopy and RTI fee.

2.Yes. Receipt of fees is fundamental. 

3.PIO has to provide information in that form in which it exists.  If the information is held in hard copy, he can not convert into digital copy through scanning and provide it.  If the information is in digital form, he can provide it.  Certified copies are one form of information, and if applicant requests, PIO should provide information in that form only. 

4.Absolutely No.   Several CIC decisions held that such denials are unknown in RTI Act.  Every denial should be as per sub section 8 (1) and justification for denying information under that clause.   There are no exemptions, if one can convince PIO of larger public interest.

5.No. The person to whom charge is handed over for performing regular duties, or to whom that application was entrusted can be considered as deemed PIO.  But the citizen's focus should be on getting information earliest without further appeals.  GIve and take policy and understanding the genuine problems if any PIO , if the PIO is sincere.   Many applicants do not take delay seriously, as further appeals on flimsy reasons takes minimum of two years and very rarely PIO gets fined. Getting information is important and PIO is not an enemy to citizen (But, several PIOs still consider citizens as enemies and treat that they are questioning his actions and targeting him to shoot problems)

6.There is no such "Essential Services"  and such "Gambit" word never finds a mention in RTI Act.  Providing information or denying information with that clause of exemption under sec.8 or 9, within 30 days is a statutory obligation.  In case of life or liberty information has to be furnished within 48 hours.

What is the exact issue that made well known member post these fundamental issues ?  One can purchase any authentic RTI book or search in the forum for such decisions/judgments on similar issues in the past.  In  one other forum RTI Authentic interpretation is available for free download.  The author is Sri Shailesh Gandhi.  Search in google with key words and down load the same and  teach others after studying and understanding..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Most Solved

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      3
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      1
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      10
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      7
    3. 3
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      4
    4. 4
      subbu23
      subbu23
      2
    5. 5
      Priya De
      Priya De
      2
  • Our picks

    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 1

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 4

        Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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