|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/RK/C/2016/000011||20 Jul, 2017||Shri Blair Rodrigues Vs. CPIO, Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa-403802
The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Goa Shipyard Limited, Goa seeking information on six points including, inter-alia, (i) copies of various Parliamentary questions received and (ii) copies of replies furnished to these Parliamentary questions.
The Commission observed that information sought has been incorrectly denied by invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(c), 8(1)(i) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the information sought pertains to Parliamentary questions and their replies, and this cannot be said to be exempted under the RTI Act as once the questions are laid on the table of the Parliament, the same can be published and therefore, are available in public domain. The Commission also observed that information pertaining to grievance redressal, number of grievances received and copy of the promotion letter issued does not relate to personal information of a third party. Hence, the same has been incorrectly denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
|2||CIC/RM/A/2014/904543||01 Apr, 2016||Ashok Khemka vs Prime Minister Office, New Delhi
The appellant filed RTI applications seeking copy of letter(s) written by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of U.P.A. to Hon'ble Prime Minister pertaining to the suspension of Mrs. Durga Shakti Nagpal, an IAS Officer of U.P. Cadre, by the Uttar Pradesh Government.
The sought for information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
The Commission held that it has seen the file on the subject which bring out that consequent to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's letter and other inputs the need to give protection to officers was discussed and a decision was taken to place the matter before Cabinet. The Commission also considered view that the crux of the penalty provisions is that the PIO should have obstructed the supply of the information with intent or should have acted consciously and deliberately in a manner so as to block the provision of the information. In the instant matter it cannot be said that the PIO acted out of any malice or with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant. It would not be appropriate to impose any penalty upon the respondent and award any compensation to the appellant.
|3||CIC/SA/A/2014/000478||07 Jan, 2015||S. N. Shukla Vs. Department of Justice, Government of India
The appellant sought information on copy of National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill as cleared by the Cabinet and copy of the note and order in the concerned file relating to the Cabinet Note about setting of the Commission.
The question was whether information regarding the cabinet decision be withheld even after a decision has been taken?
The Commission held that as soon as the final decision was taken with regard to the Bill, the matter was complete and over, and therefore, the noting should have been disclosed.
The Commission held that the contention of the appellant that once the Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha the matter was complete, is reasonable, logical and legal as it is in tune with Delhi High Court’s interpretation in Writ Petition, UOI Vs. CIC.
|4||CIC/SG/A/2011/003610/17675||14 Mar, 2012||Kishanlal Mittal Vs. CPIO & US, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Section 8(1)(i) – Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers
The Commission held that the PIO has denied the copies of the minutes of the GoM on the ground that these will be part of a Cabinet note for recommendations of GoM. The PIO states that the GoM is part of the council of Ministers and hence the minutes are exempt from disclosure as per the provision of section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that this appeared to be a reasonable claim and therefore it upholds the claim for the exemption under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.