|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/VS/C/2015/900128||09 Dec, 2016||Ashwin Shukla vs West Central Railway, Jabalpur
Section 10 Severability.
The Commission directed the respondents to provide information with regard to vigilance investigation conducted against the complainant and has been completed using severance clause under section 10 of the RTI Act and if so required, severe those parts which might compromise the sources of information and third party information.
|2||CIC/MP/A/2014/000362||09 Jan, 2015||Deepak Khemka Vs. RBI
The appellant complained that full information sought by him has not been provided by CPIO.
The respondents informed that information has been furnished after applying severability to certain portion as it contains information obtained as part of due diligence and has been made available to RBI in a fiduciary capacity as well as personal information. The names of individuals, addresses, property details and figures, etc., which was exempted, have been blocked out.
The CIC accepted the submission of the respondents that the information if not related to the appellant cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Act. The Commission did not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents.
|3||CIC/SS/A/2012/000324||04 Jul, 2012||Shri P.C. Ramakrishnaiah vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Dhanbad
The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO relating to the transfer of Regional Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from one station to another station and copies of such order as well as copies of note sheets and copies of letter/letters concurring with the proposal of transfer by the Ministry of Coal Section 7(1)
|4||CIC/AD/A/2012/000739||21 Mar, 2012||Ram Chander Vs. Directorate Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi.
Section 10(1) – Severability –
The Commission held that the service details of government employees are not completely exempt from disclosure under the provision of the RTI Act. Only those information (like details of nominees: deduction from monthly pay bills, insurance details etc.), disclosure of which might cause invasion of privacy of a third party has been decided to be withheld from disclosure, while other category of information i.e. service details (like, date of appointment, place of posting, details of increment in salary etc.) which are already in circulation or are available in the public domain, and are very much a part of a ‘service book’ of a government servant, have been allowed to be made available to the information seeker. The PIO shall furnish the present information (i.e. Copy of service book of Ms. Anita Satia, DDE, South) to the appellant after removing from it, under section 10(1) of the RTI Act, all the details which are personal to the third party.
|5||CIC/AD/A/2012/000187||20 Mar, 2012||J.P. Singh Vs. Ministry of Railway, Railway Board, New Delhi
Section 10(1) – Severability –
The Commission held that disclosure of complete investigation report to the Appellant may endanger the life of the persons who contributed to investigation process, namely witnesses and the Investigation officer. It is, therefore, directed that the PIO shall furnish the copy of the said investigation report only after severing from it under section 10(1) of the RTI Act the names of the investigation officer and the names of witness which attract the exemption under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
|6||CIC/LS/A/2011/000644||06 Sep, 2011||Smt T Madhvi vs Department of Posts, Tenali
The appellant had appeared in Postman examination held in February, 2010. She had requested for evaluated answer scripts for Paper-A, Paper-B & Paper-C — this information was, denied to her both by the CPIO and AA u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC held that, the exemption under section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. The CPIO is directed to provide the copies of the evaluated answer scripts to the appellant.
|7||CIC/MA/A/2008/01233/AD||03 Aug, 2009||Shri A.L. Motwani Vs. ITI Limited, Bengaluru
Mr. H.S. Mahesh, Chief Manager (PR) cum CPIO, Mr. Rajni K. Agarwal, General Manager (Mktg.) cum Appellate Authority, Mr. Anil Kumar, AGM(Vigilance-corporate) and Mr. D.S. Prince Raj, Manager, Corporate Vigilance represented the Public Authority.
The CPIO, CBI, Bangalore is also directed to comply with the Order of the CIC and to provide all the information available with them while relying on clause 10(1) of the RTI Act for severing information which is exempt from disclosure.
|8||CIC/AT/A/2008/00027 & 33||06 Feb, 2009||Ms. J.D. Sahay Vs. Ministry of Finance
The appellant applied for empanelment/appointment to the post of Member, CBDT twice on 10.5.2006 and 21.11.2006 but was not selected. Aggrieved by non-selection, the appellant by her two RTI Applications, submitted on 10.8.2007 and 17.8.2007 sought certain information which could throw light on the reason for her non-selection.
The Public Authority is directed to make available information in terms of request of the appellant but there shall be no obligation to disclose details concerning 3rd parties. The respondent Public Authority may suitably use the severability clause in Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act.