ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, Jun 25, 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))
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
31 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).
32 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.
33 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.
34 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.
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 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.
40 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.
41 CIC/SH/C/2016/000242
(146.42 kB) pdf icon
14 Dec, 2016 A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Kolkata

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. RTI Rules 2012. Rule 4 (g) fee for providing information. The Complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding all the e-mail ids of officers in the rank of Chief Manager and above, posted in the Head Office of the bank. The CPIO informed the Complainant that the information would be provided to him on receipt of Rs. 20/- as printout charges for four pages @ of Rs. 5/- per page (actual cost) and postal charges amounting to Rs. 28/- for sending the above information. The Complainant states that he has been asked to pay postal charges of Rs. 28/- in this case.

The Commission held that the postal charge to be taken into account would relate not only to the letter vide which the information is sent after obtaining photocopying charges etc. from an RTI applicant, but also the letter vide which the applicant is asked by the CPIO to deposit photocopying charges etc. Therefore, we hold that the CPIO's letter dated 18.52016 was also part of the process of supply of information, referred to in rule 4 (g).
42 CIC/SH/C/2016/000228
(139.54 kB) pdf icon
14 Dec, 2016 A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Ahmedabad

Section 6(1) Request for Information. Section 6(3) Transfer of the RTI application to another appropriate public authority not later than 5 days.

The Commission held that the CPIO of the Head Office was wrong in transferring the application to the Ahmedabad office of the Respondent public authority under section 6(3), which governs transfer of an application from one public authority to another. If he needed to involve the Ahmedabad office, he could have done so under section 5(4) of the Act, however, while the above points to the need for the CPIO at the Head Office to improve his knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act, the responsibility for not responding to the RTI application lies squarely with the CPIO(s) of the Ahmedabad office and not upon the CPIO of the Head office.
43 CIC/BS/A/2015/001604+001624/11841
(83.16 kB) pdf icon
05 Dec, 2016 P Kannan vs BSNL, Port Blair

Section 7(9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The Commission held that the appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to establish any larger public purpose which would warrant a directive to the respondent to provide the information sought by him even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work.
44 CIC/YA/A/2015/002404
(176.18 kB) pdf icon
29 Nov, 2016 Sudhangsu Das vs Eastern Coalfields Limited, West Bengal

Section 4(1)(b) — Obligation of the Public Authorities to publish information within one hundred and twenty days from the day of enactment of this Act

The Commission held that since in this case the examination conducted was for the post of Pharmacist, not any super specialty course, hence the ratio as laid down by the Delhi High Court in the aforementioned case of Vikrant Bhuria is not applicable in the instant case at hand. Hence, the Commission directed the Respondent to furnish the answer keys and question papers as sought by the Appellant. The Commission further held that the marks of the selected candidates who feature in the merit list should be provided. Likewise their cut-off marks and total number secured in written examination & interview should also be provided. In fact is information should have been made available on the website already by the Respondent under section 4(I)(b) of the RTI Act, all such information about marks attained by successful candidates should be made available on the website of the Respondent.
45 CIC/CC/A/2014/002171
(81.48 kB) pdf icon
28 Nov, 2016 Sheoji Kumar Parak vs PIC, DAV College Managing Committee

Section 19(8)(a)(ii). The CIC or SIC, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to appoint CPIO or SPIO.

Whether the DAV College Trust and Management Committee is public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in DAV College Trust and Management Society v Director of Public Instruction [AIR 2008 P&H 1171, wherein it was held that DAV is a public authority. As per the RTI Act, either the PIO or an officer of that rank should represent the public authority. This responsibility cannot be abdicated by appointing a counsel.

The Commission directed Mr. Punam Suri, President of DAV, CMC to file an affidavit explaining about non-implementation of the High Court Order and reasons for deputing a Law Officer without instructions and information, and not sending the PIO or any other responsible officer of same rank. The Commission also directed Mr. Punam Suri, considering him as deemed PIC), to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not complying with the High Court Order to appoint PIO, for disrespecting the RTI and the Commission by not deputing the PIO or any other officer of same rank, and for delaying the information. The Commission under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act directed the respondent authority to appoint a PIO and make necessary arrangements to provide information to the appellants under RTI Act, including furnishing of point-wise information to this appellant.
Total Case uploaded: 157