ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದೊರೆಯಬಹುದಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ - BLOG ARCHIEVE

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.

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

No comments: