CUSTOM SEARCH

ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದೊರೆಯಬಹುದಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ - BLOG ARCHIEVE

ಕಡತವೊಂದು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ - ಮಹಿತಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಬೇಕು

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರಕಾರದ ಆದೇಶ

ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣಾ ಇಲಾಖೆ
(ಜನಸ್ಪಂದನ ಕೋಶ) ೩ನೇ ಮಹಡಿ,
ಪೋಡಿಯಂ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ವಿಶ್ವೇಶ್ವರಯ್ಯ ಗೋಪುರ,
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ:೨೮-೩-೨೦೦೬

ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಿಆಸುಇ ೧೬೫ ಮಾಹಅ ೨೦೦೫

ವಿಷಯ: ಕಡತವೊಂದು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಕಡತಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ ಏನು ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳು.

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರೊಬ್ಬರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ ಆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕಡತ / ಪ್ರಕರಣ / ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳು ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನದಂತೆ ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೆಲವು ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಠಪಡಿಸಲು ಕೋರಿದ್ದವು. ಈ ಅಂಶ ಕುರಿತು ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯೊಡನೆ ಸಮಾಲೋಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತಿದೆ:-

ಆಡಳಿತ ಇಲಾಖೆಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ;
(೧) ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲಾದ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಿ (by reconstructing) ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕೆ? ಹಾಗೂ ಇದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವೆ?
(೨) ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನ: ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು.

ಅಥವಾ

(೩) ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯೀ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳಂತೆ ( standing orders) ಅವಧಿಮೀರಿದ ಕಡತದಿಂದ ಕೋರಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಡತವು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆ;
(೪) ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು?

"ಈಗ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ೨೦೦೫ ಊರ್ಜಿತದಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಒಬ್ಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ, ಆಡಳಿತ ಇಲಾಖೆಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕಲಂ ೮ ಮತ್ತು ೯ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿರುವ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಮನವಿಯನ್ನು ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆಂದು ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದರೆ. ಅದರಂತೆ ವಿವರವಾದ ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಉಪಬಂಧಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ, ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲಾದ ಕಡತಗಳನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು ಅಥವಾ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯಿ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳಂತೆ (standing orders ) ಅವಧಿ ಮೀರಿದ ಕಡತದಿಂದ ಕೋರಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಡತವು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು? ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಾವಧಾನ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿರುವಿದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸದರೆ, ಅದರಂತೆ ವಿವರವಾದ (ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕ, ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲು ನೀಡಿದ ಆದೇಶ, ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ) ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ”


ಮೇಲಿನ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನದಲ್ಲಿರಿಸಿ ಆಯಾ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸೂಕ್ತನಿರ್ಧಾರ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ, ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಹಾಗೂ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರಬೇಕೆಂದು ಸಹ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ರಾಜೀವ್ ಚಾವ್ಲ
ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಗಳು (ಪ್ರ)
ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ (ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ)







ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಲು ಇರುವ ಕಾಲಮಿತಿ ವಿವರ


1. 30 days from the date of application

2. 48 hours for information concerning the life or liberty of a person

3. 5 days shall be added to the above response time, in case the application for information is given to Assistant Public Information Officer.

4. If the interests of a third party are involved then time limit will be 40 days (maximum period + time given to the party to make representation).


Failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal.





ಕಾರಣ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸದೆ ಕೇವಲ ಕಲಂ ೮ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸುವುದು ತಪ್ಪು

Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 – 7 July,2006.

The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case .
CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 – 7 July,2006.


PIO should give his own name, name of appellate officer in his communications. CIC/OK/A/2006/00016 - 15 June 2006.


The requester should be entitled to receive clear-cut replies to all his queries.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00144 – 14 July,2006.


The respondents’ plea that compilation of the information as requested by the
appellant would lead to diversion of substantial resources of the public authority is
quite obviously over-stated. This appears to be an information which must be
maintained in ordinary course of business and no additional efforts appear necessary
to collect and collate it. In any case, the cost of any such exercise can be charged to the appellant as further fee prescribed under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act and its
corresponding Rules. CIC/AT/C/2006/00471-21.12.2006


If the rules of the Tribunal permit furnishing copies of the affidavits
or other documents connected with this pending case, or if the rules are silent
on this aspect, the documents sought for be furnished to the appellant within
15 days, free of cost. However, if furnishing of the same is not permitted, the
same may be communicated to the appellant quoting the relevant rules.
190/ICPB/2006-December 11, 2006.

…there has been a serious error by the respondents in assuming that
information in respect of sub-judice matters need not be disclosed. The RTI
Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice matters.
The only exemption in sub-judice matter is regarding what has been expressly
forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal and what may constitute
contempt of Court: Section 8(1)(b). The matter in the present appeal does not
attract this exemption. Presence of a different provision in the Cantonment Act
about supply of documents in sub-judice matters to a requester have had no
bearing on the disclosure requirement under the RTI Act. Seen purely from the
stand-point of the RTI Act, the right of the appellant to access the information
requested by him is unimpeachable.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00193-18.9.2006.

if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests
notwithstanding the Officials Secrets Act or any of the exemptions mentioned
with sub-section 8(1). That clearly shows that the Act gives paramountcy to the
public interest and the exemptions do not constitute a bar to providing
information. If it were the intention that no aspect of matters sub-judice can be
considered under the Act, this would have been expressly incorporated in
clause (b) of sub-Section 1 of Section 8 alongwith other matters prescribed in
this clause… CIC/OK/C/2006/00010, A/2006/00027 & A/2006/00049-30.8.2006













ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ಬಳಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಶೇಖರಿಸಿ ಕೊಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಹಾಕುವುದು ಸಲ್ಲದು

ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಕೇಳುವುದು ಪೋಸ್ಟಲ್ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಕೇಳುವುದು ತಪ್ಪು

Kailash Mishra applied to BSNL Seeking information about the project completed by switching and installation with in high circle. BSNL wrote back of him asking to deposit Rs. 9810/- which included Rs. 9732/- for the man hours utilized to collect the information. CIC held: BSNL should have provided details of computation since all the information was available at one place, there was no reason for deployment of extra man power for supplying the information. CIC/PB/A/2006/00063-19,June,2006.

it is mandatory for all the public authorities to adhere to the principle of
maximum disclosure, and furnish the information, as and when sought by the
citizens, for which they do not have to charge any extra money, other than what
has been prescribed by the Govt. under the RTI fees and costs rules. The CPIO
has charged an extra amount of Rs.50/- for handling his letters, which is illegal.
204/IC(A)/2006-25.8.2006








ಮಾಹಿತಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ಪಡೆಯಬೇಕು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ವತಿಯಿಂದ ಅಲ್ಲ

Recently, this Commission has decided that even if information is sought by an office bearer of an Association/Union, the same should be treated as valid in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act- 139/ICPB/2006-25.10.2006

PIO can decline information under section 3, if the applicant applies as a managing
Director of a company and not a citizen of India.
CIC\OK\A\2006\00121 - 27 June,2006.

The Appellant in his reply stated that whereas he was the General Secretary of the[political] party earlier, now he was its Vice-President. As the Appellant continues to maintain his status as an office bearer of a political party, the Commission agrees to the stand of the Respondents in denying the information to the Appellant.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00149-20.12.2006

The Commission could not agree with the PIO’s contention that the information was
sought on behalf of an institution. The Appellant had applied in his own name and had
only given his address as that of an NGO for the purpose of correct delivery of post.
Thus merely giving the address of an NGO does not imply that the institution was
asking for the information.
CIC/OK/A/2006/OOO50 – 3 July,2006







ಅರ್ಜಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಕರ ಬೇಡ, ಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರು ಪಡೆಯಿರಿ, ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ನೀಡಬೇಡಿ

PIO rejected a request that it had not been type written.CIC condemned the PIO’s action because the Act specifically provides for applications to be submitted “in writing”{Sec 6 (1)} and held: If the refusal to receive the application is only because it is handwritten as alleged,the refusal cannot be said to have been with reasonable cause as required u/s 20 (1) & (2). CIC/WB/C/2006/00035


During the hearing, the Appellant stated that when he had gone to submit his RTI application in the Dehradun, he was mistreated. The Commission takes a serious note of the complaint but since there is no evidence of this, the Commission only issues a warning to the concerned office that in case there is any complaint in future, it will be taken very seriously CIC/OK/A/2006/00288-18.12.2006





ಪೋಸ್ಟಲ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಚೀಮಾರಿ

Shri D S Negi of Dwarka, went to the office of the Chief Engineer (Dwarka Project) to file an RTI application in connection with a water crisis.

The appellant was directed to meet the EA to Chief Engineer.

The EA signed the application and marked it to PIO, SE (HQ) of the Organisation.

The PIO asked the appellant to submit an amount of Rs. 10/- in cash, as the IPO
will not be acceptable because of an accounting problem.

The application was then marked to Sr. AO.

He in turn marked it to the Accountant and then to the Receipt Clerk.

The receipt Clerk simply refused to accept the application and
asked applicant to bring a photocopy of the receipt for Rs. 10/- to be
attached with the application as proof of payment of the requisite fee.

The process therefore took nearly 3 ½ hrs to simply file an RTI application. CIC expressed deep concern over the careless attitude in receiving an application under RTI and directed to make easily accessible arrangements for receiving RTIapplications over one window or centralized counter. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00178 -14.11.2006






ಗೊಂದಲವಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು

The CPIO and the AA may, however, be well advised that in all matters such as this, it is better to call the petitioner over for a discussion about what precise information he seeks. In the present case, the petitioner had come all the way in appeal to the Commission in spite of the fact that the public authority was willing to share with him all the information which he had requested. A personal discussion would have avoided litigation.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00157 – 5 July,2006.


If there was general confusion regarding the kind of information that has been called for and that could have been supplied , it could have been easily resolved by a personal sitting between the appellant and the respondents . CIC /WB/A/2006/00180 – 5 July,2006





ಸಹಾಯಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ - ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಹೆಸರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕು

The Act has surely limited the APIO's rule only to receiving applications for information and appeals and transmitting the same to their proper destination. His responsibilities are not coextensive with the P.I.O.S. However, this action of the APIO should not create as special disability for the requester in exercising his rights under the Act.

In the normal course an applicant for information has a right to receive the reply from the PIO and the PIO only. We, however, see no legal difficulty in the PIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision on the application for information through the APIO.

In our understanding, this will not lead to any miscarriage of justice or place undue restriction on an information seeker’s rights under the RTI Act.

We, however, like to caution that any order issued by a APIO on behalf of PIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of latter and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the APIO might be acting. This will enable the information seeker to bring against the PIO any charge of delay etc. if that happens to be the case.

In this instant case, the order was, no doubt, signed by the Assistant PIO, Shri Ramesh Chand Sapra, but the order very clearly stated that this was from the “Office of the Public Information Officer-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police: West Delhi” Quite obviously, therefore, the appellant was not handicapped in knowing the identity of PIO handling his case, even though the reply was signed by the APIO.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00059-5 May,2006.

APIO
It is only a PIO who is required to provide information to the requesters. When arequest is received by an APIO he is required only to forward the same forthwith to a PIO of the public authority.— 10/01/2005 - CIC - 25 February,2006.

PIO
Under the Act, the CPIO may take the assistance of any other officer from his department. Therefore, the documents signed on his behalf by any other officer designated by him should be acceptable to the appellant. 111/IC(A)/2006 – 13 July,2006.


PIO- Multiple PIOs:
If multiple number of PIOs are appointed in the same public authority there is no scope to either ask the citizen to approach another PIO within the same public authority or send the request to another PIO within the same P.A. Only in a case where the information sought is held by another P.A. other than the one which has designated her as PIO, she can transfer the request to that P.A. for furnishing information to the applicant directly. ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 - 6 March, 2006.

Other officers
PIO, who has received the request form the requester is under obligation to seek information form his colleague and provide it to the requester. His colleague who was to provide the information as per s.5(5) would become deemed PIO and expected to provide the - PIO, who received the original request - the required information. CIC/AT/A/2006/00015 - 1 March ,2006.




ಭೂ ಸ್ವಾದೀನಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟ ಭೂಮಿಯ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲು ಆದೇಶ

Computerization of land records…the Chief Secretary NCT of Delhi is directed to ensure that vide the provisions of sec. 4(1) (a) the Land Acquisition records may be duly collected and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and are within a reasonable time computerized and connected through a network on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi is advised to make the necessary finances available to the Revenue Department, NCT Delhi to ensure compliance of these directions. CIC/WB/A/2006/00435-28.11.2006




ಲಭ್ಯ ವಿರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಲೇ ಬೇಕು, ಅದು ಯಾವ ರೀತಿಯದ್ದಾದರೇನಂತೆ

Unsigned documents …being part of the record as defined u/s 2(i)(a), even copies of unsigned documents can be provided certifying that they are in fact unsigned documents. CIC/WB/A/2006/00270-9.10.2006

If an applicant wishes to make copies of records/ samples given to him for inspection
at his own expenses, it is not for the Public Authority to object to the form in which the copies are being made, provided it is restricted to the information permissible under the Act. There is no provision in the Act disallowing Videography, and therefore, cannot be excluded unless it violates the parameters of any information sought and agreed to be provided. CIC/WB/A/2006/OO144 -- 3 Aug,2006

The respondents claimed that the documents asked for by the complainant had
been destroyed as per the procedure for destruction of records.
The respondents are directed to provide to the appellant the rules / information
regarding destruction of records / files and the particulars about the destruction of the documents requested by the complainant. CIC/AT/C/2006/00111-20.11.2006

PIO of any public authority is not expected to create and generate a fresh, an
information because it has been sought by an appellant. The appellant is,
therefore, advised to specify the required information, which may be provided, if it
exists, in the form in which it is sought by him. 285/IC(A)/2006-20.9.2006

The PIO is required to 'provide information' which is available in any form with her
office rather than giving her ' personal opinion' on the questions asked by the
requester. CIC/MA/A/2006/00150-19 June,2006

Citizens can ask for copies of documents containing the information. But they can not
seek opinions through a questionnaire. CIC/OK/A/2006/00049 - 2 May, 2006.

The appellant is under an erroneous impression of that not only he has a right to
information,he also has aright to the information in the memory of a public authority.There is no obligation to disclose such information. CIC/AT/A/2006/00296-20.11.2006

Recently, this Commission has decided that even if information is sought by an office
bearer of an Association/Union, the same should be treated as valid in terms of the
provisions of the RTI Act- 139/ICPB/2006-25.10.2006

Record Management system ought to be improved such that information which are to
be disclosed to public could be easily provided, after delineating the information that is exempted under the Act.CIC/OK/A/2006/00016 - 15 June 2006




ಸರಕಾರೇತರ ಸಂಘ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಗಳು ಸರಕಾರದಿಂದ ಅನುದಾನ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾ.ಹ. ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ

NGO's substantially financed by the appropriate Government are covered even if no specific notification is issued by the appropriate Government. There is no need of separate notification or order listing all NGOs to be covered under the Act. s.2(h)(d) mentions two separate categories, one of which is notified the Government and others which are mentioned in the inclusive definition. Both the
categories are separated by a comma and the conjunction "and"; Goa SIC Decision dt. -22 June,2006



ಸಹಕಾರಿ ಸಂಘಗಳು ಸಹಕಾರಿ ನಿಬಂದಕರ ಮುಖೇನ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ

Whether the Cooperative Society in question falls within the definition of public authority or not u/s 2(h) (d) or not is for the Office of Registrar to decide. However, the application in this case has been made to the public authority, the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies. It has been agreed by all parties in the hearing that the information sought, even if the Cooperative Society in question is deemed a private body, it falls within the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the
Act, because it is accessible to the public authority, Registrar Cooperative Societies, under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003… Registrar Cooperative Societies is advised to use his authority under the DCS Act 2003 to ensure that the East End Cooperative Group HousingSociety Ltd. is brought in compliance with the existing law on the subject and make that information available to appellant. CIC/WB/C/2006/00080-9.10.2006


Shri Sanjiv Kumar of Rohini, Delhi applied to the PIO in the Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, NCT, Delhi on 5.12.2005 requesting information on nine points relating to the New Arya Group Housing Society Limited. CIC held :
The kind of information sought, including audit reports of cooperative societies
should normally have found place on the website of the Public Authority as
mandated u/s 4. We are satisfied that there is reasonable ground to enquire into
the matter. The Additional Registrar will visit the Office of the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies NCT Delhi, as required u/s 18 (2) of the Act,
identify the shortcomings in attending to duties enjoined upon it under the RTI
Act, 2005, after which detailed directions will be given to the Public Authority on
improving its responsiveness in keeping with the spirit of the Act.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00029 -20 July,2006


ಬೆಸ್ಕಾಂ ನಂತಹ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕು

Both from the point of view of their being created by a government notification and the finances received directly or indirectly from Government of NCT of Delhi, DISCOMs[ M/s. North Delhi Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (Hereinafter referredto as
DISCOMs)] are public authorities within the meaning of Right to Information Act and, because the matter was raised in appeal before us and has been closely argued in this hearing they are so declared by this Commission in the present proceedings….The DISCOMs will however proceed to set up the necessary infrastructure for servicing applications under the RTI Act, 2005, to be fully operational within sixty days from the date of issue of this decision. CIC/WB/A/2006/00011-30.11.2006




ಮಾಹಿತಿಧಾರನು ಯಾವ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾನೋ ಸದರಿ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕು

Jai Kumar Jain applied to Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A) asking for information about the details of the lease area of all the shops of the DDA market of sector 8, in 7 Hindi, as he has applied to the PIO in Hindi. Should DDA provide the information in Hindi ?

Yes. The CIC directed DDA to provide the requested information in( translated
into) Hindi within 25 days of the issue of its decision.
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00117- 13 June,2006.



ಮಾಹಿತಿದಾರನು ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ ಫೈಲ್ ನೋಟಿಂಗ್ಸ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲೇ ಬೇಕು

Information under RTI Act includes 'file notings' and the public authority is bound to disclose them, if sought for. 36/ICPB/2006 - 26 June,2006

The Commission noted with serious concern that some public authorities were denying request for inspection of file notings and supply copies thereof to the applicants despite the fact that the RTI Act, 2005 does not exempt file notings from disclosure. The reason they were citing for non-disclosure of ‘file notings’ was the information posted on the DOPT website[www.righttoinformation.gov.in] to the effect that ‘information’ did not include file notings. Thus the DOPT website was creating a lot of unnecessary and avoidable confusion in the minds of the public authorities. The Commission hereby directs the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances, in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 19(8) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 to remove the instruction relating to non disclosure of file notings from the website within 5 days of the issue of this order failing which the Commission shall be constrained to proceed against the Ministry of Personnel.CIC/OK/A/2006/00154 – 13 July,2006

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾನೂನು ಜಾಗತಿಕವಾಗಿ ನಡೆದು ಬಂದ ಹಾದಿ


ಅಂಡರ್ಸ್ ಚೈಡಿನಿಯಸ್.

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾನೂನು ಪ್ರಪಂಚದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿದವರು ಸ್ವೀಡನ್ ದೇಶದವರು. ೨ ನೇ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ೧೭೬೬ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂದರೆ ೨೪೦ ವರ್ಷದ ಹಿಂದೆ ಜಾರಿಯಾದ ಕಾನೂನಿಗೆ ಪಿತಾಮಹ ಅಂಡರ್ಸ್ ಚೈಡಿನಿಯಸ್. ಇವರ ಸಂದೇಶ ಇಂದಿಗೂ ಅರ್ಥ ಗರ್ಬಿತವಾಗಿದೆ.

"ರಾಜನ ವೈಯುಕ್ತಿಕ ನಡವಳಿಕೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಆತನ ಸರಕಾರವು ಯಾವುದೇ ಆದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ಅವಶ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಸಮೃದ್ಧಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಆತನ ನಡವಳಿಕೆ ಸರಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಹೋದರೆ ಆತ ಎಷ್ಟೇ ಆದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದರೂ ಪಾಲನೆ ಆಗದು. ಆತನ ಮಾತು ಸತ್ಯದಿಂದ, ನಿಷ್ಠೆಯಿಂದ, ಗೌರವದಿಂದ ಮತ್ತು ಜಾಗರೂಕತೆಯಿಂದ ಕೂಡಿರಲಿ"

ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಪಿತ ಮಹಾತ್ಮ ಗಾಂದೀಜಿಯವರು ಹೀಗೆನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ "ನಿಜವಾದ ಸ್ವರಾಜ್ಯ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ತವಾಗುವುದು ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ತವಾಗುವುದರಿಂದ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಧುರುಪಯೋಗ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಕಡಿವಾಣ ಹಾಕುವುದರಿಂದ."


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೧೯೭೩ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ Bennett Coleman v. Union of India ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. (AIR 1973 SC 60.) the right to information was held to be included within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article19 (1) (a).


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೧೯೭೫ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ State of UP v Raj Narain ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. {(1975) 4 SCC 428.} ""In a Government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct there can be but a few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings."


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೧೯೯೫ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ Secretary, Ministry of I & B, Government of India v Cricket Association of Bengal ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. ((1995) 2 SCC 161) “The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech and expression is necessary, for self-expression which is an important means of free conscience and selffulfillment. It enables people to contribute to debates on social and moral
issues. It is the best way to find a truest model of anything, since it is only through it that the widest possible range of ideas can circulate. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy. Equally important is the role it plays in facilitating artistic and scholarly endeavours of all sorts. The right to communicate, therefore, includes right to communicate through any media that is available whether print or electronic or audio-visual such as advertisement, movie, article, speech, etc. That is why freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press. The freedom of the press in turn includes right to circulate and also to determine the volume of such circulation. The right to impart and receive information from electronic media is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. This freedom includes the freedom to communicate or circulate one’s opinion without interference to as large a population in the country, as well as abroad, as is possible to reach.”


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೧೯೮೨ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ S.P. Gupta v. UOI ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. (AIR 1982 SC 149.) the right of the people to know about every public act, and the details of every public transaction undertaken by public functionaries was described.


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೧೯೭೫ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ State of UP vs Rajnarain, ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. (AIR 1975 SC 865.) Justice K. K. Mathew of Supreme Court of India said that ‘in a government.... where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people.... have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries.... The responsibility of officials to explain or to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against oppression and corruption’.


ಮಾನ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ೨೦೦೪ ರ ಕೇಸಾದ People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. (2004 (2) SCC 476.) the right to information was further elevated to the status of a human right, necessary for making governance transparent and accountable. It was also emphasized that governance must be participatory.






ಮಾನವಹಕ್ಕು ಘೋಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಸಾಲು ಈ ರೀತಿಯದ್ದಾಗಿದೆ. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through media regardless of frontiers. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights )






ಬ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರದ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಘೋಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ ವಿಶ್ವಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಸಾಲು ಈ ರೀತಿಯದ್ದಾಗಿದೆ. Article 13 of the ‘UN Convention against Corruption’, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 31 October 2003 identifies: ‘(i) effective access to information for public; (ii) undertaking public information activities contributing to non-tolerance of corruption (including conducting public education programmes) and (iii) respecting, promoting and protecting the freedom to seek, receive, publish and disseminate information concerning corruption…’ as important measures to be taken by Governments for ensuring the participation of society in governance.






ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ತಜ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ನೋಬೆಲ್ ಪುರಸ್ಕೃತ ಪ್ರೋ. ಅಮಾರ್ತ್ಯ ಸೆನ್ ರವರ ನುಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ
"Transparency guarantees deal with the need for openness that people can expect: the freedom to deal with one another under guarantees of disclosure and lucidity. When that trust is seriously violated, the lives of many people - both direct parties and third parties - may be adversely affected by the lack of openness. Transparency guarantees (including the right to disclosure) can thus be an important category of instrumental freedom. These guarantees have a clear instrumental role in preventing corruption, financial irresponsibility, and underhand dealings"

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು - ಸಂಘಟನೆಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜಕಾರಣಿಗಳ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನದ ಹಾದಿ

ರಾಜಸ್ತಾನದ ಮಜದೂರ್ ಕಿಸಾನ್ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಸಂಘಟನೆ ಯ ಪಾಧಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಸಾಧನೆ ಅಪ್ರತಿಮವಾದದ್ದು. ಕಳೆದ ೧೫ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಕೆಳ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ರೈತರು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಮಿಕರ ಹೋರಾಟಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯಲು ನಡೆಸಿರುವ ದರಣಿ ಸತ್ಯಾಗ್ರಹ ಇಂದು ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಸಫಲತೆ ತಂದಿದೆ.


ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಕಾರ್ಯಕರ್ತರು, ವಕೀಲರು, ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು, ನಿವೃತ್ತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ವೃತ್ತಿಪರರು ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡು ೧೯೯೬ ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ ನ್ಯಾಷನಲ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ಫಾರ್ ಪೀಪಲ್ಸ್ ರೈಟ್ ಟು ಇನ್-ಫರ್ಮೇಷನ್. ಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಕೊಡುಗೆ ಅಪಾರ.

ಕೆಲವು ಕಡೆ ಜನರ ಒತ್ತಾಯ, ಕೆಲವು ಕಡೆ ಸಂಘಾನೆಗಳ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ, ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನದಾಗಿ ಅಂತರ್ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಹಣಕಾಸು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಸಾಲ ನೀಡಲು ವಿಧಿಸಿದ್ದ ಕಂಡೀಶನ್ ಗಳು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಯಾಗಲು ಕಾರಣವಾಯಿತು.

ರಾಜಸ್ತಾನ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ, ದೆಹಲಿ ಯಲ್ಲಿ - ೨೦೦೦ ರಲ್ಲಿ

ಮಹಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ, ಮಧ್ಯಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ, ಜಮ್ಮು ಕಾಶ್ಮೀರದಲ್ಲಿ - ೨೦೦೩ ರಲ್ಲಿ

ತಮಿಳುನಾಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ - ೧೯೯೭ ರಲ್ಲಿ

ಗೋವ ದಲ್ಲಿ - ೧೯೯೭ ರಲ್ಲಿ

ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರಕಾರ - ೨೦೦೫ ರಲ್ಲಿ


ಮಹಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ ಕಾನೂನು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯುವವರಿಗೆ ಸಹಾಯಕವಾಗಿ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ತಮಿಳುನಾಡು ಕಾನೂನು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹೇಗೆ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ವಿಷೇಷತೆಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತಜ್ನರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವಾಗಿದೆ.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರಕಾರ ೧೯೯೭ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲಾಖ ಆದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ದಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಖಡತಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ದೃಡಿಕೃತ ನಖಲು ನೀಡಲು ಮುಂದಾಯಿತು ಇದು ಸರಕಾರಿ ಕಾರ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊದಲನೆ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರಕಾರ ೨೦೦೦ ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ತಂದಿತಾದರೂ ೨೦೦೨ ರ ವರೆಗೆ ಜಾರಿಮಾಡಲಾಗಲಿಲ್ಲ. ೨೦೦೨ ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಯಮ ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತಂದಿತಾದರು ಐದು ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಒಂದು ಎ೪ ಹಾಳೆಗೆ ವಿಧಿಸಿ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯನ ಕೈಗೆಟುಕುವ ಹಾದಿ ತಪ್ಪಿಸಿತು. ಈಗ ೨೦೦೫ ರ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ನಂತರ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರಕಾರಿ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹ ನೀಡಿದೆ.

ರಾಜಕಾರಣಿಗಳ ಪೈಕಿ ಮಾಜಿ ಪ್ರದಾನಿ ವಿ.ಪಿ.ಸಿಂಗ್ ರವರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಮಹತ್ವ ವನ್ನು ಒತ್ತಿ ಹೇಳಿದರಾದರೂ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೆಂಬಲವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಇಚ್ಚಾಶಕ್ತಿ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಫಲ ಕಾಣಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ವಾಜಪೇಯಿಯವರು ಪ್ರಪ್ರಥಮ ಕಾನೂನು ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದರಾದರೂ ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಇಚ್ಚಾಶಕ್ತಿ ತೋರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಇಂದಿನ ಯು.ಪಿ.ಎ. ಸರಕಾರ ತನ್ನ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿ ಜಾರಿತರಲು ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಇಂದು ನಾವು..... ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ಬೆಳೆಯುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಮನ್ ಮೋಹನ್.... ಸಿಂಗ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲ ಬೇಕಾದ ಕೀರ್ತಿ.

KANNADA ARTICLE ON PROPERTY AND LAW




KANNADA ARTICLE ON MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

KANNADA ARTICLE ON CHEQUE BOUNCE

KANNADA ARTICLE - RENT CONTROL LAWS











KANNADA ARTICLE - DON'T NEGLECT DEPENDENTS





KANNADA ARTICLE ON CARE BEFORE SALE AGREEMENTS











KANNADA ARTICLE WHY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST PERSONS WHO SPEAK TRUTH

KANNADA ARTICLE ABOUT ADVOCACY

KANNADA -ARTICLE ABOUT CHILD EXPLOITATION





KANNADA -ARTICLE ABOUT BLACK COLOUR

KANNADA - MY FIRST ARTICLE PUBLISHED

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS