THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Act No. 22 of 2005 dated 15th June

To provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities

PREAMBLE

to provide for setting out the practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic:

AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

Article 19 of Constitution of India

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. – (1) All citizens shall have the right –

(a) to freedom of speech and expression

(b) -----------

Democracy

According to Oxford companion to law, it means rule by the people, the form of Government in which general body of people ultimately exercise the power of Government

Direct Democracy

Political decisions are made by whole body of citizens and majority view being adopted

Representative Democracy

Political decisions are taken by persons chosen to represent, and responsible to, the whole body of citizens

Other Features of Democracy

Features normally associated with Democracy:

Regular and Free Elections

An independent judiciary

Large measures of freedom of press

Freedom of speech, or assembly and of association

Rule of law – executives and the administrators are subject to rules of law and can be called to account for infringements thereof

Major Defects of Democracy

Incapacity of majority of citizens to understand the extremely difficult and complicated issues of social and economic policy involved in modern Government

Constant danger of citizens being deluded by popular leaders to support courses which are attractive and easy

The low intelligence of great mass of voters and their liability to be influenced by motives of greed, jealousy and selfishness

Transparency Meaning and Need

the quality of being done in an open way without secrets

Need

A situation in which business and other activities are done in an open way without secrets, so that the people can trust that they are fair and honest:

We need to strike balance between the need for transparency and respect for individual privacy.

Greater role for independent auditors to increase transparency and accountability.

Our goal is to make sure that public authorities operate with the utmost degree of transparency.

CPIO SUPREME COURT V S C AGARWAL

(DOD: 13.11.2019)

Supreme Court held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.

Transparency does not undermine judicial independence. Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand.

Disclosure is face of public interest,

Sanjiv Khanna

Transparency vs. Confidentiality

CPIO SUPREME COURT V S C AGARWAL (DOD: 13.11.2019)

“Confidentiality may have some bearing and importance in ensuring honest and fair appraisals, though it could work the other way around also and, therefore, what should be disclosed would depend on authentic enquiry relating to the public interest, that is, whether the right to access and the right to know outweighs the possible public interest in protecting privacy or outweighs the harm and injury to third parties when the information relates to such third parties or the information is confidential in nature.”

Right to Information

Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed

The Right to Information Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government, its departments, institutions etc.

Expectations from Right to Information Laws

Special efforts are needed, particularly at the initial stages, to ensure that RTI law results in citizens’ participation and involvement to strengthn the governance process

The law requires all constitutional authorities to facilitate the implementation of this “Right” in letter and spirit

People want to know how and why the Government rather, its minions who go by the name public servants has been spending the hard-earned money collected through taxes, direct as well as indirect

Expectations from Right to Information Laws

The audit and inspection reports prepared by CAG contain critical reviews and comments that include that the quest should be directed by those who want to find out why only 15 to 20 paisa of centrally allocated rupee reaches the village

It is Common perception and open secret that rampant corruption prevails in public administration system, despite the activities of the so-called “Vigilance” departments which has made a mockery of entire process

Government is obviously reluctant to expose its own inefficiency

A Law on access will do little to change a closed, secret elitist environment in to an open democracy

The lack of political will is perhaps, the most serious obstacle in transforming the Government from being ‘closed’ to open.

Object of the Right to Information Act

to empower the citizens,

to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government

to contain corruption,

and to make our democracy work for the people in real sense

an informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more accountable to the governed

Challenges to Right to Information Act

Major Challenge is to develop capacities for access to information and enhance
Capacity of both Public Authorities (i.e. the duty-bearers)
Capacity of citizens (i.e. the claim holders)
Strategies required:
Comprehensive Information System
Mass Awareness among people
Proactive and suo moto disclosure of information
Promote information literacy

Landmark Order

State of UP v Raj Narain (1975)4 SCC 428

In a government of responsibility like ours, where all agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries….to cover with veil of secrecy the common routine business, is not in the interest of public.

Mathew J. on behalf of the Bench

Misuse of RTI

Apprehension : The information will be misused. Officers and others will be black-mailed

One can only be blackmailed if there is something to hide, not when information is open and accessible to all.
Only those who have done wrong can be blackmailed. The Act will be a deterrent for wrongdoing.

What is Information [Sec. 2 (f)]

any material in any form

It includes records, documents, memos,

e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form

Information relating to any private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force

What is a Public Authority [Sec. 2(h)]

"public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

Right to Information [Sec. 2(j)]

" Right to Information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

Right to Information

A citizen has a right to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control. This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority.

The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

1/8/2011-lR, Govemrnent of India

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions DOPT

OFFICE MEMORANDUM [Dated: 16^th September, 2011 ]

The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Department’s O.M. No.1/4/2009-IR dated 05.10.2009 whereby a Guide on the RTI Act, 2005 was circulated. Para 10 of Part I of the guide, inter alia stated that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.’ The same issue has been elaborated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors.

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 654 of 2011)

“At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Actprovides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009

Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer & Ors.

Petitioner had asked as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 ignored the written arguments and additional written arguments, as the ignorance of the same tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the Respondent No.4 omitted to examine the fabricated documents filed by the plaintiff; and for what reason the respondent no.4 omitted to examine the documents filed by the petitioner. He had filed the application under Section 6 of the RTI Act to know why and for what reasons Respondent No. 4 had come to a particular conclusion which was against the petitioner.

The nature of the questions posed in the application was to the effect why and for what reason Respondent No. 4 omitted to examine certain documents and why he came to such a conclusion.

The SC held that under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons

Right to Information

The Act gives the citizens a right to information at par with the Members of parliament and the Members of State Legislatures. According to the Act, the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person. [Sec. 8(1)(j)]

Right to Information

A citizen has a right to get ‘material’ from a public authority which is held by or under the control of that public authority. The Act, however, does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce some conclusion from the ‘material’ and supply the ‘conclusion’ so deduced to the applicant. It means that the Public Information Officer is required to supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the public authority, but not to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him.

Right to Information available only to Citizens of India [Sec. 3]

3 Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.

Supply of Information to Associations etc.

The Act gives the right to information only to the citizens of India. It does not make provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies etc. which are legal entities/persons, but not citizens.

However, if an application is made by an employee or office-bearer of any Corporation, Association, Company, NGO etc. indicating his name and such employee/office bearer is a citizen of India, information may be supplied to him/her.

In such cases, it would be presumed that a citizen has sought information at the address of the Corporation etc.

Sec. 4 of RTI Act

Every public authority shall—

(a)maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—

(i) the particulars of its organization, functions and duties;

(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;

(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;

(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;

(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;

(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;

(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;

(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;

(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;

(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;

(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;

(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;

(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.
All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.

Time Period for Supply of Information

In normal course, information to an applicant shall be supplied within 30 days from the receipt of application by the public authority.

If information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, it shall be supplied within 48 hours.

In case the application is sent through the Assistant Public Information Officer or it is sent to a wrong public authority, five days shall be added to the period of thirty days or 48 hours, as the case may be.

Information Exempted from Disclosure [Sec. 8]

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;

Information Exempted from Disclosure

c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
d) information including commercial confidence, trade 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 Exempted from Disclosure

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;
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;

Information Exempted from Disclosure

j) 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.

Information Exempted from Disclosure

2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (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 secton 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.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpand vs. CIC & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212...

precedent to be followed by public information officers, Information Commissions and courts across the country and is constricting the citizen’s Right to Information significantly...

Issue: Whether the information pertaining to a Public Servant in respect of his service career and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties, can be denied on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The observations of the Court: “12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The Court held that: The Apex Court has held that copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and hence exempted. ...

Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others

(Wife entitled to know husband’s salary) MP High Court (15.5.2018)

Appellant filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 to seek the salary details of the respondent No.1. The application was rejected. Matter travelled up to the Central Information Commission and the Central Information Commission vide order dated 27.07.2007 asked the Central Public Information Officer, BSNL, unit of BSNL to furnish the details of monthly remuneration. This order of the Central Information Commission was challenged in writ petition by Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain respondent No.1 as well as by the BSNL. The only ground raised in support of the writ petition was that Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain was not heard before passing the order dated 27.07.2007. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition only on the aforesaid ground and directed the Central Information Commission to decide the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Central Information Commission vide order dated 26.12.2007, after affording opportunity of hearing, passed the order under Section 4(1)(b)(x) to comply with the provisions of the Act so that information is available on the public domain. This order was challenged in second round of writ petition by respondent No.1 as well as by the BSNL. Learned Single Judge by the order impugned allowed the writ petition following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212. Against the order impugned, this Intra Court Appeal.

The controversy involved in the present writ appeal is whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act or it is covered by Section 4(1)(b)(x) which obliges the public authorities to display on public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.

Smt. Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and others

(Wife entitled to know husband’s salary) MP High Court (15.5.2018)

The question is whether information sought is a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of Shri Pawan Kumar Jain.

In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Vol.IV (4th edn.) ‘public interest’ is defined thus: “Public interest – 1. A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”

In Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edn.). ‘public interest’ is defined as follows: “Public Interest – Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national government...”

While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No.1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside.

Section 10 – Severability

(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

(2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall give a notice to the applicant, informing,--

(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;

(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;

Section 10 – Severability

(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and

(e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding nondisclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry

Supreme Court Judgement (Dec-16-2015)

Issue:

whether all the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be denied by the Reserve Bank of India and other Banks to the public at large on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank on the one hand and the public interest on the other. If the answer to above question is in negative, then upto what extent the information can be provided under the 2005 Act.

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry

Supreme Court Judgement (Dec-16-2015)

Issue:

(Refer Judgement)

Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005 (Sec. 11)

Third party information.—(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the 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.

Sec. 11 contd….

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub‑section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub‑section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub‑section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

8/2/2010-lR, Govemrnent of India

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions DOPT

OFFICE MEMORANDUM [Dated: 27^th April, 2010 ]

Subject: Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005

1.The undersigned is directed to say that the Goveminent,'in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.

Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority against the decision of the PI0 and if not satisfied with the decision of the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PI0 cannot disclose such information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed.
8/2/2010-lR, Govemrnent of India

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions DOPT

OFFICE MEMORANDUM [Dated: 27^th April, 2010 ]

Subject: Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005

As defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. It is a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PI0 liable to action.
The Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities should keep these provisions of the Act in view while taking decision, about disclosure of third party information in general and disclosure of the third party information, when third party is a public authority, in particular.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

CPIO Supreme Court v S C Aggarwal (DOD: 13.11.2019)

“The public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to a particular information and the person.”

“The delicate balance requires identification of public interest behind each exemption and then cumulatively weighing the public interest in accepting or maintaining the exemption(s) to deny information in a particular case against the public interest in disclosure in that particular case. Further, under Section 11(1), reference is made to the ‘possible’ harm and injury to the third party which will also have to be factored in when determining disclosure of confidential information relating to the third parties.”

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST: Motive and Purpose

CPIO Supreme Court v S C Aggarwal (DOD: 13.11.2019)

“The last aspect in the context of public interest test would be in the form of clarification as to the effect of sub-section (2) to Section 6 of the RTI Act which does not require the information seeker to give any reason for making a request for the information. Clearly, ‘motive’ and ‘purpose’ for making the request for information is irrelevant, and being extraneous cannot be a ground for refusing the information.

However, this is not to state that ‘motive’ and ‘purpose’ may not be relevant factor while applying the public interest test in case of qualified exemptions governed by the public interest test. It is in this context that this Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 92 of 108 has held that beneficiary cannot be denied personal information relating to him. Similarly, in other cases, public interest may weigh in favour of the disclosure when the information sought may be of special interest or special significance to the applicant. It could equally be a negative factor when the ‘motive’ and ‘purpose’ is vexatious or it is a case of clear abuse of law.”

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

CPIO Supreme Court v S C Aggarwal (DOD 13.11.2019)

As per Justice Ramana, there are certain factors which needs to be considered before concluding whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy of the person concerned. These non-exhaustive factors are;

The nature of information.
Impact on private life.
Improper conduct.
Criminality
Place where the activity occurred or the information was found.
Attributes of claimants such as being a public figure, a minor etc and their reputation.
Absence of consent.
Circumstances and purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publishers.
Effect on the claimant.
Intrusion's nature and purpose

CPIO Supreme Court v S C Aggarwal (DOD 13.11.2019)

“The present judgment does not seek to define what the standards for judicial appointments should be.

However, what needs to be emphasised is that the substantive standards which are borne in mind must be formulated and placed in the public realm as a measure that would promote confidence in the appointments process. Due publicity to the norms which have been formulated and are applied would foster a degree of transparency and promote accountability in decision making at all levels within the judiciary and the government. The norms may also spell out the criteria followed for assessing the judges of the district judiciary for higher judicial office.
There is a vital public interest in disclosing the basis on which those with judicial experience are evaluated for elevation to higher judicial office particularly having regard to merit, integrity and judicial performance.
Placing the criteria followed in making judicial appointments in the public domain will fulfil the purpose and mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, engender public confidence in the process and provides a safeguard against extraneous considerations entering into the process.”

Y V Chandrachud

R K Jain v UOI (SC) 2013(sec. 11 RTI)

Refer Judgement

Kerala Pub.Service Commn. and Ors. Vs. State Information Commn. and Anr. [Supreme Court (2016)]

Refer Judgement

In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam.

Section 18 - Powers and functions of Commission

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,--

(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;

Section 18 - Powers and functions of Commission

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

Section 18 - Powers and functions of Commission

(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;

(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament, or the State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds.

Section 19 - Appeal

(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in subsection (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

Section 19 - Appeal

(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.";

(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.

(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the denied the request.

Section 19 - Appeal

(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.

(8) In its decision, the Central Information or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,--

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including–

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

Section 19 - Appeal

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(d) reject the application.

(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.

(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

Section 20 - Penalties

(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees;

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

Section 20 - Penalties

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

Comparison of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019

CHAPTER VI

Miscellaneous

Protection of action taken in good faith.

Section 21

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made there under.

Good Faith

Kishur J. Aggarwal v Indian Rare Earth’s Ltd. {Deptt. Of Atomic Energy}

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00015, decided on 2.6.2006 (CIC)

The denial of information on the grounds of interpretation of law is covered by “Good Faith”

Vijay Jha v Deptt. Of Scientific & Industrial Research [DSIR]

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00121,122,123 & 124

Decided on 17.05.2006 (CIC)

CPIO plea of being under staffed is accepted as reasonable cause for delay. Directed him to provide the information sought after raising the necessary recourses at appellant’s expenses.

Act to have overriding effect

Section 22

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.

University of Calcutta v Pritam Rooj

AIR2009Cal97 at 112

In view of the overriding effect of the RTI Act, a subordinate legislation framed by WBBSE that clearly is inconsistent with the spirit of RTI Act cannot whittle down or negate a right flowing from it.

In view of the RTI act having overriding effect, an examinee is not required to challenge the validity of the said regulations. The said regulations, insofar it denies inspection of an answer script, being clearly inconsistent with the provisions of RTI act have to be read down to save it from the charge of being ultra vires the provisions thereof.

Manish Kumar Khanna v Supreme Court of India

No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00940

Decided on 24.09.2007 (CIC)

In number of cases the CIC has held that the Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules is not inconsistent with the RTI act, but merely lays down a different procedure for obtaining information regarding judicial orders of Supreme Court to that as laid down by the Supreme Court RTI Rules for obtaining information from the Registry.

Dwarika Prasad v Supreme Court of India

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01130

Decided on 18.01.2010 (CIC)

“The difference between the RTI Act and the procedure as prescribed by the SC for conduct of its own practice and the procedure have to be looked into from another angle also as to whether there is direct inconsistency between the two. In this context, it may be mentioned that neithwr provision prohibits or forbids dissemination of information or grant of copies of records. The difference is only in so far as the practice or payment of fees etc. is concerned. There is, therefore, no inherent inconsistency between the two.”

Bar of jurisdiction of courts

Section 23

No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

However options for Writ Petitions and SLP will stand

Act not to apply to certain organisations

Section 24

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

Intelligence and security organization established by the Central Government

Intelligence Bureau.
Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
Directorate of Enforcement.
Narcotics Control Bureau.
Aviation Research Centre.
Special Frontier Force.
Border Security Force.
Central Reserve Police Force.
Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
Central Industrial Security Force.
National Security Guards.

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

Intelligence and security organization established by the Central Government

Assam Rifles.
Sashtra Seema Bal
Director General of Income Tax (Investigation.
National technical Research Organization
Financial Intelligence Unit, India
Special Protection Group
Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)
Border Road Development Board
National Security Council Secretariat
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
National Intelligence Grid

This section ordains the authorities whose list has been specified in the Second Schedule, not to divulge the information to the Public. These exemptions have been made in the interest of security of the state and for the proper functioning of the security organisations

Anuj Dharv Cabinet Secretary (R)

Decided on 12.12.2006 (CIC)

“Under section 24 nothing contained in the act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the second schedule of the act, except information pertaining to allegations of corruptions and human right violation which are not excluded under this section.”

Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal Dasgupta v Cabinet Seceretariat

AIR2011 (NOC) 50 Del

“Tenability of “allegations” could not be considered in situation where criminal trial against petitioner was pending at stage of framing of charges. Proviso to section 24 (1) did not stand attracted.”

Dr. Asha Singh v CRPF

Decided on 3.7.2008 (CIC) (FB)

Information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section and the information shall only be provided after the approval of Central Information Commission within Forty Five days from the date of request.

Maj. Gen V. K. Singh v Cabinet Secretariat

28.11.2008 (CIC)

Allegations of corruption and violation of human rights are the only two grounds on which an organisation listed in the second schedule of the Act can be brought within the purview of the Act.

Superintendent of Police, Central Range office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai v R. Kartikeyan

AIR2012Mad84

State Government could notify exempting intelligence and security Organization. But, it could not notify information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations even in case of intelligence and security organizations.

Exemption depends on the nature of information required.

Vijayalakshmi v Union of India

AIR2011Mad275 at 285, 290-291

Non-applicability of the Act on CBI – No Blanket exemption

In view of the proviso to the Section 24(1), It can hardly be stated to be case of whole sole exemption of a blanket exemption.

If an application comes with a query alleging corruption in any of the agencies or organizations, listed in second schedule, such information sought for is bound to be provided and the protection under section 24(1) cannot be availed of.

Vijayalakshmi v Union of India

AIR2011Mad275 at 285, 290-291

Similar is the case of violation of human rights.

Apprehension that CBI by virtue of its inclusion in the list of second schedule has got blanket exemtion, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that what has contemplated under section 24 is not a blanket exemption.

It cannot be tstaed that every police thana is an intelligence agency and should not be treated at par with the CBI for the benefit of the exemption under section 24

Shaji Luckore v PIO Police Hqrs., A.P

22.09.2008 (Ker IC)

The DPC minutes is only minutes prepared for the meeting of the DPC committee they are considering the confidential reports, service records and certain aspects to conger promotions of departmental candidates. They are preparing a list of promotees. But as soon as the process is over the minutes is public document in the public domain and is no longer secret document. The old concept of confidential reports of officers are being redefined in the light of existing system of the act there is no confedentiality in the minutes of DPC and therefore, it is document assessible to a person who was one among officers whose names were considered for promotion

Annual Report (Section 25)

Report to Government by Information Commission Central Information Commission(CIC) shall send an annual report to the Central Government on the implementation of the provisions of RTI Act at the end of the year. [Similarly SIC to State Government]

This Report shall contain details of number of requests received by each Public Authority, number of rejections and appeals, particulars of any disciplinary action taken, amount of fees and charges collected etc.

Monitoring and Reporting

Section 25

(1) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government.

(2) Each Ministry or Department shall, in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, as is required to prepare the report under this section and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and keeping of records for the purposes of this section.

(3) Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—

(a) the number of requests made to each public authority;

(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;

(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;

(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;

(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;

(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;

(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, before each House of the State Legislature, where there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the State Legislature before that House.

(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

Appropriate Government to prepare programmes

Section 26

(1) The appropriate Government may, to the extent of availability of financial and other resources,—

(a) develop and organise educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, in particular of disadvantaged communities as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under this Act;

(b) encourage public authorities to participate in the development and organisation of programmes referred to in clause (a) and to undertake such programmes themselves;

(c) promote timely and effective dissemination of accurate information by public authorities about their activities; and

(d) train Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, of public authorities and produce relevant training materials for use by the public authorities themselves.

(2) The appropriate Government shall, within eighteen months from the commencement of this Act, compile in its official language a guide containing such information, in an easily comprehensible form and manner, as may reasonably be required by a person who wishes to exercise any right specified in this Act.

(3) The appropriate Government shall, if necessary, update and publish the guidelines referred to in sub-section (2) at regular intervals which shall, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of sub-section (2), include—

(a) the objects of this Act;

(b) the postal and street address, the phone and fax number and, if available, electronic mail address of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of every public authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 5;

(c) the manner and the form in which request for access to an information shall be made to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(d) the assistance available from and the duties of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of a public authority under this Act;

(e) the assistance available from the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(f) all remedies in law available regarding an act or failure to act in respect of a right or duty conferred or imposed by this Act including the manner of filing an appeal to the Commission;

(g) the provisions providing for the voluntary disclosure of categories of records in accordance with section 4;

(h) the notices regarding fees to be paid in relation to requests for access to an information; and

(i) any additional regulations or circulars made or issued in relation to obtaining access to an information in accordance with this Act.

(4) The appropriate Government must, if necessary, update and publish the guidelines at regular intervals.

Power to make rules by appropriate Government

Section 27

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

(c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7;

(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 andsub-section (6) of section 16;

(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and

(f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

Power to make rules by competent authority

Section 28

(1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;

(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;

(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7; and

(iv) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed

Laying of rules

Section 29

(1) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

(2) Every rule made under this Act by a State Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is notified, before the State Legislature.

Power to remove difficulties

Section 30

(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty:

Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.

(2) Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament.

Repeal

Section 31

The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 is hereby repealed

Framing of Questions

Never ask questions like

what, why, when etc.

Applications will get

dismissed straight

away

Instead always start with:

Provide copy of.

Provide circulars.

Provide minutes.

Provide samples.

Provide GR.

Provide file noting.

“The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused”

-Mahatma Gandhi

Landmark Order

State of UP v Raj Narain (1975)4 SCC 428

Mathew J. on behalf of the Bench

Mr. P.N. Shukla Vs Canara Bank

Appeal No. 374/ICPB/2006 F. No. PBA/07/17 Dated March 5, 2007

Personal information (S.8(1)(j))

When S. 8(1)(j) is read as a whole, it is apparent that Personal information does not mean information relating to the information seeker since the question of invasion of privacy does not arise in his own case. Therefore when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information.

Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00154 Dated January 2, 2007

Pyare Lal Vs Ministry of Railways, DoPT

Full Bench of Central Information Commission

File Notings are not exempt from Disclosure

Definition of File : Manual of Office Procedure of DoPT

(Section 27 of Chapter II: Definitions)

File means Collection of papers on a specific subject matter assigned a file number and consisting of one or more of the following parts:

a) Correspondence b) Notes c) Appendix to Correspondence

d)Appendix to Notes’

This would imply that ‘notings’ are an inextricable part of a record as defined u/s 2(f) and further defined u/s 2(i). Therefore file notings cannot be held to be excluded unless they come in conflict with public interest or are excluded under any of the provisions of RTI Act –

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00726 Dated 28.09.2006

[Shri. Dinesh Kumar Abrol Vs CSIR]

Work Report of an Employee is Givable

Since work reports of Employees have been submitted for consideration of appointment/promotion in a public authority, it cannot be argued that such information has no relationship to any public activity. We find, therefore, that this information will not fall u/s 8(1)(j)

Wajahat Habibullah, Central Chief Information Commissioner

The following shall ordinarily be provided

a) Copy of Every bill settled from Funds Controlled by the Public Authority
b) Calculation sheet of TA/DA
c) Statement of accounts of Every Project/Event funded/organised by Public Authority
d) Expenditure details and purposes of every journey performed by Government Employee in Official Capacity/
e) Name, Qualification and expertise details of each member of Selection Committee once the Selection is over.
f) Details of all the Quotations and quoted rates of any product/service after the purchase procedure is over (including Building/Transport contract etc.)

LTC Bills and family details may be withheld.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (SC)

Supreme Court declared that RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the financial institutions because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of of confidence or trust.

“RBI is supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of individual banks. RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI has no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank, and thus there is no relationship of ‘trust’ between them. RBI has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of the public at large, the depositors, the country’s economy and the banking sector. Thus, RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might embarrass individual banks.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Office of AG (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court held that the office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.

Justice Vibhu Bhakru in his judgment said, “The expression “authority” would also include all persons or bodies that have been conferred a power to perform the functions entrusted to them. Merely because the bulk of the duties of the AGI are advisory, the same would not render the office of the AGI any less authoritative than other constitutional functionaries. There are various bodies, which are entrusted with ‘staff functions’ (i.e. which are advisory in nature) as distinct from ‘line functions’ The expression “authority” as used in Section 2(h) cannot be read as a term to exclude bodies or entities which are, essentially, performing advisory functions.” The judgment also notes, “The expression “authority” as used in Section 2(h) of the Act would encompass any office that is conferred with any statutory or constitutional power. The office of the AGI is an office established under the Constitution of India; the incumbent appointed to that office discharges functions as provided the Constitution. Article 76(2) of the Constitution expressly provides that the AGI would perform the duties of a legal character and also discharge the functions conferred on him under the Constitution or any other law in force. Indisputably, the appointee to that office is, by virtue the constitution, vested with the authority to discharge those functions.”

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

RTI can be used even if information not relevant or germane and even if applicant has access to material through other means

Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court)

Setting aside an order passed by the CIC, the Delhi High Court remanded a case back to CIC for consideration in the light of the observations. Justice Vibhu Bakhru emphasized on two points, first being that the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary, is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant. The second point was that the petitioner has access to the material relied upon by the prosecution does not prevent him from seeking information, which he considers necessary for his defence.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

Jiju Lukose vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)

A division bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shafique held that the police authorities are obliged to provide the copy of the FIR on an RTI application, unless an appropriate authority decides it is exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

N. Shukla v. Department of Justice

Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu directed the Department of Justice on 7.1.2015, to disclose the Union Cabinet note and details about its decision to establish National Judicial Appointment Commission. The Department of Justice had refused reasoning that it was a cabinet secret and was exempted u/S 8 (1)(i) of RTI act.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

Subhash Chandra Aggarwal vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India (SC)

Medical Expenses of Judges cannot be revealed under RTI: SC Supreme Court of India held that the medical expenses of Judges are not qualified to come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act. The Apex Court rejected an appeal against Delhi High Court decision which had held that information about doctor’s visit expenses of judges and their families can’t be revealed.

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

CIC directed CBSE to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for denying RTI seeking copy of answer sheets

The Central Information Commission in Vijay Kumar Mishra v. CBSE directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to furnish the copies of answer-scripts sought for by the father of a student, and to pay a compensation of Rs.25, 000 to the parent for harassing him and compelling him to sign illegal undertaking to give up rights.

The Information Commissioner also issued show cause notice to then CPIOs of CBSE who refused information sought for. Rejecting the grounds on which the CBSE denied the natural guardian from exercising his legal duty to secure the legal interests of his son including his right to information the information commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu said “The CBSE has no authority to impose such restriction on the rights of minor and his guardian.”

The Commission also directed the CBSE to put in place such system with conducive practices by which the Right to information is not limited but facilitated, by removing the obstacles such as undertaking to give up their legal right

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

CIC directed CBSE to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for denying RTI seeking copy of answer sheets

Harinder Dhingra v. PIO, MoEF (National Anthem, song, animal, bird, sport etc.

Date of decision: 27.12.2016 (CIC)

RTI request with PMO’s Office in 2015 asking for the certification of the following along with the copies of relevant files:

that Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem
that VandeMataram is the national song
that Tiger is the national animal
that peacock is national bird
that lotus is national flower, and
that hockey is the national game.

Article 51(A) (a) of the Constitution states:

…it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem…...

“it is imperative for the Government of India, especially the office of PM and MoEF to gather the historical evidences to explain the significance of the national anthem, national song, national animal, bird and national flower besides national game. If such information is authentically collected, researched and presented, it will go a long way to restore the respect of the people towards this ‘nationalism’ and remove the misnomers. This will instill real patriotism.”

The Commission directs the CPIO of MoEF to provide entire information along with the copies of the files pertaining to conferring national status to animal, bird and flower, without further transferring the RTI application in bits and pieces to different Departments. The Commission cannot approve and will not take the pathetic defence of the MoEF that records were lost.
The Commission remands the first two questions of the RTI application back to the CPIO of PMO with a direction to initiate fresh efforts to find out the historical facts about these two inspiring songs- Jana Gana Mana and Vande Matharam and status accorded to them to place facts before the nation and dispel widespread misnomers about them in larger public interest, as that is a national necessity to address the patriotic and secular sentiments of the people of India.
The Commission directs the CPIO of MoEF to collect information from its various wings to give complete information about national status accorded to animal, bird and flower along with relevant documents. The Commission requires the MoEF to enquire into the loss of records of notification of national animal and national bird.
The Commission directs the MoEF to transfer the sports part of RTI question to Ministry of Sports, which is hereby directed to inform the appellant about the details of India’s national sport with certified copies of relevant records. All the information shall be furnished to the appellant in two months from date of receipt of this order.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL v OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA (10.03.2015) DHC

whether the Office of Attorney General of India is a 'public authority' within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

The CIC referred to the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Anr.: (1981) 1 SCC 449 to conclude that AGI was not an authority:

"27. Control by Government of the corporation is writ large in the Act and in the factum of being a Government company. Moreover, here, Section 7 gives to the Government company mentioned in it a statutory recognition, a legislative sanction and status above a mere Government company. If the entity is no more than a company under the Company law or society under the law relating to registered societies or cooperative societies you cannot call it an authority. A ration shop run by a cooperative store financed by government is not an authority, being a mere merchant, not a sharer of State power. 'Authority' in law belong to the province of power: 'Authority (in Administrative Law) is a body having jurisdiction in certain matters of a public nature.' Therefore, the 'ability conferred upon a person by the law to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties; liabilities or other legal relations, either of himself or of other persons' must be present ab extra to make a person an 'authority'. When the person is an 'agent or instrument of the functions of the State' the power is public. So the search here must be to see whether the Act vests authority, as agent or instrument of the State, to affect the legal relations of oneself or others."

Ø petitioners contend that the office of the AGI is established by virtue of Article 76 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, AGI would be answerable to the people of India.

Ø It was further contended that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the RTI Act must be interpreted in furtherance of the said fundamental right.

Ø The petitioners further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P.Singhal v. Union of India: (2010) 6 SCC 331 to contend that the AGI holds a public office. It was further contended that apart from acting as a lawyer for the Government of India, the AGI also has certain other privileges and functions; under Article 88 of the Constitution of India, the AGI has the right to take part in the proceedings of the Parliament.

Ø The AGI also performs certain statutory duties under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The respondent disputes the contentions urged by the petitioners.

Ø that the AGI is a standalone counsel of the Government of India and is in a sui generis position under the Constitution of India.

Ø that the functions performed by AGI neither alter the rights of any person nor bind the Government of India; therefore, the AGI could not be construed as an "authority".

Ø Respondent referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram: (1975) 1 SCC 421 in support of his contention that the term "authority" refers to the power to alter the 'relations' or rights of others. And, none of the functions of AGI belong to the realm of authority.

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines "Public Authority" and reads as under:

"(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--.

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;“

"76. Attorney-General for India.--(1) The President shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court to be Attorney-General for India. (2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. (3) In the performance of his duties the Attorney-General shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India. (4) The Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine."

In IFCI Limited v. Ravinder Balwani: (175) 2010 DLT 84 had expressly held that "Given the fact that there is a specific definition of what constitutes a 'public authority' for the purposes of the RTI Act, there is no warrant for incorporating the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution is likely to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, the converse need not be necessarily true. Given the purpose and object of the RTI Act the only consideration is whether the body in question answers the description of a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. There is no need to turn to the Constitution for this purpose, particularly when there is a specific statutory provision for that purpose."

I respectfully concur with the aforesaid view that reference to the definition of an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution is not necessary in determining the scope of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The expression "authority" as used under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, also necessarily takes colour from the context of the said Act. An office that is established under the Constitution of India would clearly fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Even in common parlance, the AGI has always been understood as a constitutional authority

It is apparent from the above that the public nature of the activities being carried on by the statutory corporations and the Government companies, in question persuaded the Courts to hold them as 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed that the functions of the AGI are also in the nature of public functions. The AGI performs the functions as are required by virtue of Article 76(2) of the Constitution of India. In B.P. Singhal (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held the office of the AGI to be a public office. In this view also, the office of the AGI should be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Amrika Bai v. PIO, EPFO, Raipur

27.03.2017 (CIC) [pension, life & liberty issue)

Appellant sought details of payment of pension amount from 16.11.1996 to 31.03.2015

CPIO replied that the total relief amount for the period between 01.04.2000 to 01.07.2015 was Rs. 12,810, which was paid to the appellant in the month of June, 2015. Accordingly, the pension payment detail was given by the CPIO.

RIGHT TO LIFE BY PENSION:

Right to life is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It says: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It’s like a mantra for a person that prevents illegal deprivation of life or liberty. State devised several welfare measures like ‘pension’ to retired employees. This is a positive measure of State to implement Article 21 of Constitution of India. Pension for old aged, disabled etc. is an extension of this right. The maintenance amount fixed by courts for dependents and spouses is a similar legal measure to help living.

The expression used in the Act is simply “where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person”, which should mean it is enough if it concerns the life or liberty. That need not be in imminent danger. This was neither stated nor required by the RTI Act. If a prisoner wants to know the date of release or having an apprehension about delaying the release and if there is any problem in calculating the remission or period of sentence etc, this information request is “the information concerning the life or liberty”.

‘Pensioners’ are another class of persons who require information about pension, delayed or not paid, or not fixed etc. if the file for pension fixation is facing red tape, the retired employee does not get any pay as he was getting when in service, might not have means to survive, might not be supported by son or daughter, might be failing to help his wife, or he might be at the mercy of his son or daughter or others for small requirements too. Then his request for information has enough concern for life or liberty to demand urgent disclosure.

The RTI Act just provides for disclosure of information which might be used for protection of life and liberty, or might be used against possible danger to life or liberty. If that element of concern is prima facie, visible, the PIO has to provide information within 48 hours. There is no need to look for ‘imminent danger’ to life.

Keeping in view the living needs of old aged pensioner, the Commission considers that any information relating to fixation, non-payment and delay regarding fixation of pension, besides non-payment of interest on arrears as life and liberty related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

If an old aged person prefers an RTI application regarding the pension matters mentioned herein, the public authority should understand that it might have a hidden-untold misery. It is the statutory duty of public authority/PIO to respond to such RTI requests within 48 hours as mandated by Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

If for any reason this did not happen, they have a duty to communicate at least those reasons within 48 hours along with the address of the FAA as soon as possible, to the appellant to file first appeal. The appellant in such cases can file first appeal immediately, which shall also be taken up for hearing.

duty of the FAA to identify if the issue in first appeal relates to pension and to initiate hearing process within 48 hours

Similarly the CIC as well to initiate and give hearing in 48 hours

Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001

The Delhi Right to Information Act 2001 and Rules there under were enacted in the year 2001 to provide every citizen the right to obtain information from government departments through a duly designated Competent Authority .Under the Act, in the first place, a public authority is expected to maintain all its records, duly catalogued and indexed. A Public Authority is defined as a body established or constituted by organs of the Constitution or by any law made by the government and includes any other body owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

The Act requires every public authority to publish at regular intervals all particulars of the organization, the powers and duties of officers, the procedure followed by them in the decision making process, the norms set by the public authority for discharging its functions, copies of all laws, bye-laws, Rules, Regulations, details of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information and the name, resignation and particulars of the Competent Authority.(A second level officer of each Department is appointed by name as the Competent Authority and he has to supply the information as per the Act.)The Public Authority is also expected to publish all relevant facts concerning important decisions and policies that affect the public, to give reasons for its decisions whether administrative or quasi--judicial to those affected by such decisions.Before initiating any project, the public authority is expected to publish or communicate to the public generally affected by the decision the facts available to it, in the best interests of maintenance of democratic principles.

PUBLIC GRIEVANCES COMMISSION

Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

- James Madison

The Delhi Government established the Public Grievances Commission in 1997 to provide a forum

to redress problems the public experience in dealing with the departments of the Government of NCT of Delhi.

The Commission is an autonomous organisation.

Its jurisdiction includes all Government Departments/ Organisations/Public Undertakings and

other institutions funded partially/fully by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi

including MCD, NDMC, Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Police.

The Commission accords a hearing to the complainant, and a

representative of the concerned department, side by side, with the objective of

finding a quick solution to a genuine problem. It makes recommendations to

the Government if warranted, against officials, if acts of omission or

commission, including harassment or dereliction of duty are prima facie

apparent.

The Commission also acts as the Appellate Authority under the Delhi

Right to Information Act, 2001. Within a short span of about three years, over

1200 appeals have been filed by applicants who were dissatisfied with the

information given to them by the public authority concerned. The Commission

has decided over 1000 appeals, ordering the information to be given in 75% of

the cases.

Powers and Functions of the Commission

The Commission examines complaints received from members of public against various types of abuse of power and authority on the part of the government servants of the Delhi State including Delhi Police.

The advisory jurisdiction of the Commission however, does not extend to the Delhi Development Authority.

The Commission examines complaints made by members of public against:

Acts of omission or commission, inaction, harassment, extortion, corruption, abuse of power and authority by officials.

Independence of the Commission

The Commission is an Advisory Body but works independently.

The Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of NCT of Delhi is the nodal department for the Commission.

In the exercise of its powers and functions, the Commission has the same measure of independence and autonomy as the Union Public Service Commission.

Reports of the Commission pertaining to the departments/organizations of the Government of NCT of Delhi are laid by the Government of Delhi on the table of the Legislative Assembly.

A separate report covering Delhi Police is submitted to the Central Government through the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi for placing it on the table of the Parliament.

The Commission prepares an Annual Report and cases pertaining to non-implementation of its recommendations are reflected in the Annual Report.

Composition of the Commission

The Commission is headed by a Chairman and has 3 Members (including 2 Part-Time Members) who are appointed by the Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi.

The Chairman of the Commission is a person in the rank of Secretary to the Government of India prior to his appointment as Chairman of the Commission. The Whole-Time Member has to be a person who has been a Director General of Police of a State or has held an office of comparative Status and responsibilities. The two part-time Members shall be persons of public eminence having special knowledge or practical experience in the field of education or science or law or literature or social service or human rights. Of these 2 Part-Time Members, at least one shall be a woman.

Who Can Approach the Commission

Any affected person may make a complaint to the Commission after exhausting the normal channel giving specific details of the case supported by relevant documents.

The applicant is also required to swear an affidavit on plain paper confirming the correctness of the facts given by him and also that the subject matter of the complaint it is not sub-judice.*

*This does not apply to cases under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001.

Cases which are not taken up by the Commission

The Commission however, does not take up cases of following types:

(i) Where the complaint made is anonymous and contains vague and superfluous allegations ;

(ii) Where the matter is sub-judice in any court of Law, Tribunal or a judicial or a quasi-judicial Authority ;

(iii) Where the complainant has not exhausted the channels available to him within the concerned Department / Organisation ;

* This does not apply to cases under the Delhi Right to Information Act, 2001.

(iv) Where the complaints are by the serving Government Officials against their Department.

(v) Where the complaint pertains to service matters.

(However, complaints relating to the grant of terminal benefits like Pension/GPF/Gratuity to retired Government employees are being entertained.)

Procedure for filing complaints/registering a grievance with the Commission

Any aggrieved person may make a complaint in writing to the Secretary of the Commission giving specific details of his grievance or as the case may be. The complaint should be duly supported by the following:

(i) Supporting documents like the application etc. made by the complainant to the departments/Public Body or the organization specified above and the inaction or the wrong actions taken by the concerned official/office on the same.

(ii) Copy of order passed by any of the officials of these Departments/Bodies (but not being the orders of any civil/criminal Courts, Tribunals judicial or quasi-judicial authorities) giving cause for grievance to the complainant.

(iii) A duly sworn affidavit on plain paper has to be filed by the complainant confirming the correctness of facts/allegations made by him in the application and also containing a declaration that the subject matter of the complaint is not sub-judice before any court of law or judicial or quasi-judicial authority.

Process followed by the Commission in hearing public grievances/ Complaints

The Commission calls for comments on the complaint from the concerned departments who in their response will support their stand with records.

The Commission holds open hearing in each case and summons such officials as considered necessary.

The Commission lays emphasis on the speedy disposal of complaints.

Under the Resolution of the Government, it is incumbent on the Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi, Commissioner of Delhi Police and the Head of the Department concerned to ensure that the documents called for by the Commission are furnished to it within the time frame specified by the Commission, and also to ensure that officials, if any, summoned by the Commission appear before it at such time and date asfixed for the purpose.

Commission’s Orders

The Commission passes speaking orders and in cases where it is held that the allegations made against the officials concerned are prima facie established, the Commission recommends action to be taken against the erring officials.

The Commission gives it considered recommendations in all complaints. Where the allegations made against the officials concerned are prima facie established, the Commission recommends action to the concerned Head of Department to take action against the erring officials.

Although the Commission does not entertain complaints on service matters it regularly receives grievances relating to post retirement benefits of ex-employees, including non-payment of GPF(majority of the cases pertain to the Education Department). Such grievances also get resolved substantially during the course of the proceedings before the Commission.

Amendments to Right to Information Act, 2005

13/04/2016

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013

BILL

to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

(1) This Act may be called the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2013.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd day of June, 2013.

In section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (h), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:––

‘Explanation.––The expression “authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted” by any law made by Parliament shall not include any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.’.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

After section 31 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:—

“32. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or commission, the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2013, shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have effect, in the case of any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or any other law for the time being in force and the rules made or notifications issued thereunder.”.

CIC JUDGMENT DATED 3^RD JUNE 2013

File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001386

File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000838

Complainants :

Shri Subhash Chandra Aggarwal
Shri Anil Bairwal

Respondents:

Indian National Congress/ All India Congress Committee (AICC);
Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP);
Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM);
Communist Party of India(CPI);
Nationalist Congress Party(NCP); and
Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP)

Dates of hearing: 26th September & 1st November, 2012.

Date of Decision: 3rd June 2013

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013

BILL

to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

(1) This Act may be called the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2013.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd day of June, 2013.

In section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (h), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:––

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

After section 31 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely:—

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Government for setting out a framework for effectuating the right to information for citizens and to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
The Central Information Commission in one of its decision dated 03.06.2013 has held that the political parties namely AICC/INC, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the said Act. The Government considers that the CIC has made a liberal interpretation of section 2(h) of the said Act in its decision. The political parties are neither established nor constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by Parliament. Rather, they are registered or recognised under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules/orders made or issued thereunder.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

It has also been observed that there are already provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as in the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deals with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties and their candidates.
Declaring a political party as public authority under the RTI Act would hamper its smooth internal working, which is not the objective of the said Act and was not envisaged by Parliament under the RTI Act. Further, the political rivals may misuse the provisions of RTI Act, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the political parties.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

In view of above, the Government has decided to amend the RTI Act to keep the political parties out of the purview of the RTI Act, with a view to remove the adverse effects of the said decision of the CIC. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed amendment with effect from the date of the said decision of CIC, that is, 3rd day of June, 2013.

THANK YOU

OFFICE PROCEDURE

Breaking

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 dated 15th June

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Act No. 22 of 2005 dated 15th June

CCS (CCA) RULES | MINOR PENALTIES

Post a Comment

GeM Procurement from Government e Marketplace (GeM)

DELHI GOVERNMENT EMPOYEES HEALTH SCHEME (DGEHS)

Revised Retirement Benefits: 7CPC || Planning for Retirement| Terminal Benefits & Rules pertaining to these Benefits

| Audit Report : Settlement of Audit Paras |

Main Tags

Most Popular

GeM Procurement from Government e Marketplace (GeM)

DELHI GOVERNMENT EMPOYEES HEALTH SCHEME (DGEHS)

Most Popular remove

DELHI GOVERNMENT EMPOYEES HEALTH SCHEME (DGEHS)

GeM Procurement from Government e Marketplace (GeM)

Featured post

कुंडली ( Kundli ) के रहस्य

Latest Posts

Contact Form