ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exempted Organisation
Supreme Court(Exempted Organisation)/ High Courts(Exempted Organisation)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
16 CIC/SS/A/2013/000809
(67.60 kB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2013 G. Mammen vs Seema Suraksha Bal

The appellant states in his RTI application that he was an employee of Dandakaranya Project of Government of India under Ministry of Home Affairs during the period from 5.1.1962 to 13.4.1977 and that he did not receive his pensionary benefits based on his service rendered. The appellant also states that as per Judgement dated 25.8.2000 of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and Judgment dated 12.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India many employees of the Central Government under Ministry of Home Affairs who rendered a minimum service of ten years or above have been paid proportionate pension. The appellant sought to know from the respondent at point no. (1) whether any official under MHA resigned or otherwise left service after rendering service of a minimum of ten years of service has been paid minimum pension. At point (2) the appellant sought to know whether beneficiaries of the Judgment referred to above have since been paid pension and at point (3) the appellant sought to know the dates of payment of pensionary benefits to the said beneficiaries of Judgement. 3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated31.8.2012 wherein the respondent stated that BSF is an exempted organisation as per section 24 of the RTI Act.— the Commission held that the information sought mainly pertains to service matter ie. pension benefits etc. The information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The appeal disposed off accordingly.
17 CIC/SM/C/2011/001564
(206.91 kB) pdf icon
14 Sep, 2012 Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi

The appellant sought information relating to the appointment of Sh. Sanjeev Tripathi in the RAW which is an exempted organization. Hence, requested information cannot be disclosed – it is contended that the appointment under the Central Government are made with the approval of the competent authority and in terms of the Recruitment Rules framed specifically for each post. The Commission held that there is no doubt that while the details about his other appointments in the RAW made by the organization itself need not be disclosed, his appointment as Secretary of that organization will have to be disclosed having been processed in the Cabinet Secretariat or any other public authority of the Government. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat to provide the copies of all the desired records and documents in respect of appointment of Sh. Sanjeev Tripathi as Secretary to the RAW.
18 CIC/SM/A/2011/001528
(209.66 kB) pdf icon
24 May, 2012 Nitin Nayyar v Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

Section 24 — Act not to apply to certain organizations — Inclusion of CBI in the second schedule to the RTI Act
The Commission held that since all the RTI applications had been filed prior to the notification of June 2011 by which the CBI had been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act, none of these applications could be rejected on the basis of that notification.
19 CIC/WB/A/2010/000095-SM
(204.93 kB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2011 Shri Laxman Prasad Kushwaha Vs. CPIO Cabinet Sectt.

The Appellant had sought some information from the Cabinet Secretariat CIC/WB/A/2010/000095¬SM (EA II) section, otherwise known as RAW.
CIC held that the public authority in this case is an organisation placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In terms of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it except in cases of allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The present case does not fall within either of these categories and, therefore, the organisation is not obliged to disclose the desired information. There is no merit in the appeal. It is, thus, disallowed.
20 CIC/WB/A/2010/000093 & 239-SM
(206.64 kB) pdf icon
31 Mar, 2011 Shri V K Mittal Vs. CPIO, National Technical Research Organisation

CIC agreed with the contention of the Appellant that, ordinarily an organisation like the NTRO included in the second schedule is not required to disclose any information. However, in this case, the CPIO had decided to disclose part of the information and had promised to provide the remaining after getting it from the relevant divisions. Even the Appellate Authority had directed the CPIO to provide the remaining information within a specific time period. Therefore, we think that the orders of the Appellate Authority should be carried out. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the remaining information in both the cases to the Appellant within 15 working days of the receipt of the order unless any of the information is otherwise exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act.
21 CIC/WB/A/2010/000022-SM
(206.47 kB) pdf icon
29 Mar, 2011 Shri Harender Delhi Vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat.

CIC observed that, it is a fact that the public authority from which the information has been sought has been included in the second schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it. However, in terms of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation will have to be provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule Caste alleged that the public authority had been extremely unfair to him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons thereby violating his human rights. In the special circumstances of this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as covered by the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and allow the information to be disclosed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.
Total Case uploaded: 21