ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Aug 19, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection)
Supreme Court(Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection))/ High Courts(Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection))
31 CIC/SS/A/2013/002072-YA
(78.69 kB) pdf icon
21 Feb, 2017 Sumitra Sen Vs. Northern Coalfields Ltd.

Appellant sought information relating to gross/net salary, form – 16, and property acquired and sold etc.

After finding that the same appeal was heard by the Commission some time back, and applied the ratio of the full bench decision of CIC in respect of repeated RTI applications/appeals on the same subject as follows:

Though the RTI Act did not specifically provide this (repeating applications on the same subject) as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the various provisions of the Act that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.

Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the RTI Act. Once the information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, FAA, the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application....
32 CIC/CC/A/2015/002843
(106.02 kB) pdf icon
10 Feb, 2017 Prasant Kumar Pradhan vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Odisha

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The Commission held that the disclosure of the information sought is in furtherance of the public policy and no blanket exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act would apply. It is clarified that only names of beneficiaries and corresponding amount paid shall be furnished. There is no legal impediment if the aforesaid detail/information is put in public domain through the website.
33 CIC/RK/A/2016/000636/SD
(61.42 kB) pdf icon
30 Jan, 2017 Bir Singh vs Garrison Engineer (AF), Palam

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has inappropriately denied information under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act claiming it to be that of a third party. The work orders for any government projects are paid for from the treasury of government exchequer. It is for this reason that there ought to be probity and transparency in such affairs. The information regarding approving samples or completion period for a particular work order issued by the public authority cannot be said to be a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The disclosure of this information will not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual concerned.
34 CIC/SB/A/2016/000067-BJ
(95.05 kB) pdf icon
24 Jan, 2017 Ashok Kumat vs O/o the Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore

Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that that information pertaining to contract letters, appointment letters given by MPCA to Mr. Amay Khurasia as full time coach of MPCA from 2008 till date and the approvals accorded by the Government Department since 2008, in respect of a Civil Servant being permitted to perform the functions of a coach outside the precincts of the Civil Services Conduct Rules is a matter of larger public interest that warrants disclosure of such activities for all concerned in accordance with section 10 read with section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It is incumbent upon a Civil Servant to Act as a Role Model for the society and suo-moto volunteer disclosure of such information for public at large upholding the morals of ethics, transparency and accountability. The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the information.
35 CIC/SB/A/2016/000357-BJ
(99.28 kB) pdf icon
23 Jan, 2017 Jatinder Kumar Aggarwal vs O/o the Commissioner of Service Tax-111, Mumbai

Section 19(1) — Appeal to FAA — the Commission held that it is evident that although the CPIO had provided a suitable response but the conduct of the FAA against whom the information was being sought was perceptibly suspect and it was ethically wrong on his part and against the principles of natural justice to adjudicate his own matter. The Commission directed the Chairman, CBEC to designate another officer in the matter as FAA and the case is remanded for adjudication afresh by the FAA, thus appointed by the CBEC.
36 CIC/SB/A/2016/000083
(60.86 kB) pdf icon
18 Jan, 2017 Ashok Khemka vs Department of Personnel and Training

Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. The Commission held that the appellant is not seeking information regarding the ACC note and that he had only sought information regarding an agenda item which was placed before the CSB.

The Commission further observed that the CSB, which is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and consists of Secretaries to the Government of India, is distinct from the ACC. Exemption under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act does not apply to the present case. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide a copy of the agenda item, pertaining to the appellant, along with the minutes of the meeting of the CSB, after severing personal information relating to third party(ies).
37 CIC/SB/A/2015/000640
(70.78 kB) pdf icon
12 Jan, 2017 Raj Kumar Jha vs Delhi Police

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Right to Information Rules, 2012 Rule 3 proviso. No application shall be rejected only on the ground that it contains more than five hundred words.

The Commission held that it agrees with the appellant that the RTI application cannot be rejected only on the grounds that it is lengthy as per the proviso to the Rule 3 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012.
38 CIC/SH/A/2015/002195
(321.97 kB) pdf icon
10 Jan, 2017 Rajbir Phogat vs Dena Bank, Panchkula

Section 2(j) — Right to Information — Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation — the Commission relied upon the Full Bench decision dated 7.6.2010 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238, wherein, it was held that the appellant can seek the same information through the Trial Court in full measure and should he succeed in persuading the Court he would have received the records and documents which he is wanting now to access through RTI Act. An information which is evidence or is related to evidence in an ongoing prosecution comes under the control of the Trial Court within the meaning of section 26) of the RTI Act, therefore, all determinations about disclosure of any information relating to an ongoing prosecution should be through the agency of the Trial Court and not otherwise.
39 CIC/YA/A/2015/002534
(0 bytes) pdf icon
03 Jan, 2017 D Rajkumar vs Geological Survey of India, Bangalore

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Information as already furnished by the Respondent was not warranted in terms of the RTI Act. The Commission held that information exempt from disclosure viz. List of employees who have been issued Charge Memo by virtue of being personal information related to third party and disclosure whereof has not been shown to serve any larger public interest has been supplied by the Respondent.

The Commission strongly recommends the officials dealing with the RTI Act should be appropriately trained before being assigned the cases related to the Act. A copy of this order is directed to be marked to the Director, GSI, Remote Sensing & Aerial Surveys for taking appropriate action and ensure that adequate tralning is imparted to officers handling RTI related cases.
40 CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB
(550.58 kB) pdf icon
29 Dec, 2016 Ashok Mishra vs IHQ (Army)

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence. Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.
41 CIC/MP/A/2016/001598
(38.16 kB) pdf icon
27 Dec, 2016 Shivaji Rao vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kadapa

Section 7 (9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Section 8(I)(d) Commercial Confidence. The appellant submitted RTI application to the CPIO, LIC, Kadapa seeking number of policies issued during 2005 to 2015 and its value of assured amount in Kurnool District; number of claims received during the period and its value of assured amount; number of settled claims; number of complaints filed in any District Consumer Forum against LIC of India; number of complaints allowed against District Consumer Forums; etc. through eight points — the Commission held that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and not maintained by the respondent authority in the form sought by the appellant and part of the information pertained to the commercial confidence of the respondent authority, which cannot be provided under the provisions of section 8(I)(d) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
42 CIC/SA/A/2016/000017
(72.02 kB) pdf icon
27 Dec, 2016 Gurbaksh Singh vs PIO, Punjab University

Section 9 Infringement of copy right. The Commission held that unlike a book written by the author, the thesis is the product of combination of research by the author and supervision by the University besides certification by experts in the field. This research also was carried out only after the admission after due scrutiny, proper guidance or supervision, infrastructural support, examination, and evaluation by the University. Finally, the degree is awarded after a viva-voice examination. The sharing of thesis by giving a photocopy cannot be equated with commercial reproduction. The words research itself means re-search thus meaning further research. And if any individual wants to analyze or study and conduct further research on the thesis, such opportunity cannot be denied, especially when primary goal of a University is facilitation of access, making knowledge available, affordable and achievable.
43 CIC/SA/A/2016/001453
(137.12 kB) pdf icon
27 Dec, 2016 Harinder Dhingra vs MoEF

Section 7 (1) — Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. The appellant filed RTI application with PMO's Office in 2015 asking for the certification of the following along with the copies of relevant files:
a. that Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem
b. that Vande Mataram is the national song
c. that Tiger is the national animal
d. that peacock is national bird
e. that lotus is national flower, and
f. that hockey is the national game.
The Commission held that there was a spurt of transfers without any iota of information. First, the office of PMO ignored first two parts of RTI question (about national anthem), transferred points c, d and e to the Ministry of MoEF relating to tiger, peacock and lotus. The PIO of MoEF transferred the RTI application for information on aspect of tiger to CPIO, Wildlife division, MoEF. It has forwarded to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the CPIO of NCTA stated that it was again transferred to CPIO, Wildlife Division for information on tiger. According to NTCA officer the "national anthem and national song do not pertain to their authority CPIOs of all high offices simply passed it on to the others without application of mind. 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 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 directed 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.
44 CIC/YA/A/2015/902774
(154.68 kB) pdf icon
26 Dec, 2016 Ramabharti Sharma vs Power Grid Corporation of India, Gurgaon

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. The Commission held that appellant's husband has been adversely affected due to the administrative decision of the respondent public authority. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. In the considered opinion of the Commission, there is no harm the sealed cover in question is opened and disclosed to the appellant. Further, a clear and cogent reply as to why the case of promotion of appellant's husband was not placed before the successive DPCs shall be spelt out.
45 CIC/SB/A/2015/000404
(81.68 kB) pdf icon
20 Dec, 2016 Sadanand Paul vs Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ann

Section 7(1) Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. Official Languages Act 1963 — Official Languages Rules 1976 Rule 7.2. Reply of RTI application by the public authority to the applicant. The Commission held that in its earlier order in File No.CIC/ SIMI/A/2012/001234 dated 06.022013 had observed that the CPIO had replied, in some cases, in English while the Appellant had sent his RTI application in Hindi. For future, the CPIO must remember to reply to RTI requests in Hindi in that language and not in English.
Total Case uploaded: 162