Datasets:

jatinmehra
/

RTI-CASE-DATASET

instruction stringlengths 233 20.3k	response stringlengths 35 30.9k
The Public Authority admits to providing wrong information to the appellant Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) of Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a particular FIR. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the South West District (SWD) and to the PIO of the Crime Branch for providing requisite information directly to the appellant. The PIO (SWD) informed that the entire investigation of the case was being done by Crime Branch and that his RTI application had already been transferred to PIO (Crime Branch) by the PIO (PHQ) for directly providing information to the appellant. The PIO stated that after looking into stock register from 2007 no such entry in the stock register was found based on reply received from deemed PIO. The appeal filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was not entertained on the grounds of it being time barred. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant asked about the use of two Blank Hard Drive in the case with a particular serial numbers. The appellant sought photocopies of the bills /vouchers of these Hard Drives. The respondent admitted that wrong reply has been furnished by deemed PIO. The stock register was shown to the Court wherein it was proved that two hard disks were issued by HAG. The appellant desired to know whether correct information has been provided to him in reply to his RTI application. The respondent clarified during the hearing that the entire matter was explained before the Court and the Register was also shown to the Court showing issuance of the two Blank Hard Drives. The Court has accepted the stock register on record and convicted the appellant/ accused for the offence he was being tried. The PIO also informed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against deemed PIO’s HC Sushil Kumar and SI Khem Chand for providing wrong information.	The Commission observed that as the record has already been accepted as genuine by the Court and the concerned officials have been proceeded against for providing wrong information, there is no reason to pass any directions to the respondent.
Details about the medical claim filed with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) seeking information regarding the action taken on her medical claim form no. 97 for Rs 20,586/– along with current status of the case etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the information was furnished to the appellant. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the complete file pertaining to the medical claim of the appellant’s husband had been lost by the Department and after taking photocopies and other medical documents duly signed by the doctors once again, the file had since been reconstructed and was currently under submission to the CAMO. The respondent also submitted that the file had been submitted to the CAMO and was received with certain objections which had been addressed and the file was once again resubmitted to the CAMO for obtaining his sanction before releasing payment. The appellant submitted that she has been put to great inconvenience and harassment and she had to run from pillar to post to obtain the signatures of the doctors a second time to complete the reconstruction of the lost file and she was yet to know about the current status of the case.	The Commission observed that as per the averments of the respondent, the reconstructed file is under submission to the CAMO and therefore, the said officer is the deemed PIO in this case as per the provisions of section 5(4) and section 5(5) of the RTI Act, being the holder of information. The CIC directed the CAMO to provide the current status of the case to the appellant. Referring to the preamble of the RTI Act, the CIC observed that the public authority has definitely caused great mental anguish and harassment to the appellant by losing the entire file pertaining to the Medical claim of her husband and the delay in sanctioning reimbursement of the claim as per rules has undoubtedly caused financial detriment to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO / Deputy Director, Horticulture Department to provide information to the appellant regarding the final outcome of the enquiry which has been ordered into the loss of the appellant's file as soon as the enquiry is completed and if enquiry has already been completed then the information would be provided to her. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC granted a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the mental anguish, harassment and financial detriment caused to the her on account of loss of the relevant file by the officer who was responsible for its safe custody.
Issue of delay in providing maturity amount against the LIC policy raised through the RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding her policy including delay in releasing maturity amount to her and also the basis on which additional loan against the said policy had been sanctioned and disbursed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. Information regarding the enhancement of loan amount against the appellant’s policy and the name of the person to whom the additional loan had been disbursed was denied claiming that it did not fall under the definition of information as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed that an internal Departmental enquiry had been initiated in the matter. The PIO informed that the matter pertaining to the policy of the appellant was under investigation for fraud allegedly committed by the agent. The appellant stated that this is the first time this information has been conveyed to him and objected to the fact that the same had been held back from him and not disclosed in response to his RTI application.	The Commission directed the PIO to provide the detail in respect of enhancement of loan amount against her policy and complete information regarding the current status of the ongoing enquiry in respect of the fraud committed visa is the appellant's policy. Further, the CIC directed the PIO to ascertain whether receipt has been issued to the appellant for the two annual premiums paid by him, by cheque for the years 2009 and 2010. The CIC also added that the former PIO had provided incorrect and vague information to the appellant in respect of some point. However, the CIC accepted the explanation of the current PIO that the fraud was detected in September 2012 and the PIO had provided information on22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.May 2012. In respect of the manner in which the former PIO has denied information by quoting the provisions of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Act, the CIC issued the show cause notice to the former PIO for not dealing with the appellant’s application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
How are the cars defined as 'big' or 'small'? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue seeking information in relation to a news item “Increase duty on diesel cars up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs: Jaipal” . He specifically wanted to know whether it is true that Union Petroleum Minister has written some letter probably to Union Finance Minister suggesting to increase excise-duty on diesel cars; is it true that big and small cars are presently defined according to length of cars rather than their ex-factory prices for differential rates of excise duty; is it true that many car-manufacturers have reduced length of cars (like Maruti Swift Dezire) and/or introduced costlier luxury cars of smaller length to avail lower rate of excise duty which is presently levied according to length of cars rather than ex-factory price. He also wanted complete and detailed information on action taken by Union Finance Ministry in the interest of revenue to tackle such tactics of car manufacturers like categorizing big and small cars according to ex-factory price rather than length along with related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc. on action taken on each and every aspect of his submissions “Excise Duty on Diesel Cars” routed to Department of Revenue through PG Portal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some Information. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the information regarding action taken by Union Finance Ministry and the related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc. is not maintained by the Department of Revenue. For the rest of the queries the PIO argued that do not fall within the ambit of the definition of “information” as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.	The Commission observed that the appellant has sought specific information and directed the PIO, Department of Revenue to provide clear/ categorical information to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide action taken on appellant’s submissions “Excise Duty on Diesel Cars” routed to Department of Revenue through PG Portal.
Addressing the issue of an out of order telephone connection through RTI Background: The appellant’s telephone was out of order and even after filing complaint with the authorities the service was not resumed. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that telephone number was installed at his parent’s residence and the same frequently remains out of order and he has lodged two complaints but satisfactory information has not been provided. The respondent explained that the telephone is installed at a distance of approximately 06 KM from the exchange and the cable is extensively damaged and hence it is not possible to put the telephone in working order in the near future. The respondent stated that instead of that he can immediately install a fixed wireless phone (working on mobile technology) at the said premises without charging any installation fee. The appellant stated that he would be satisfied if the fixed wireless phone is installed and that the respondent should take appropriate steps to replace the damaged cable in due course.	The Commission held that the respondent should ensure that a fixed wireless phone (working on mobile technology) is installed without charging any installation fee.
Detail of Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department seeking copies of all Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that all Central Acts were available for the general public on the website of the Ministry. The PIO also referred to the website of the Ministry and suggested to download the required Central Acts. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant requested the PIO to furnish the certified copies of all incoming and outgoing letters, notes, orders, notifications, memorandums and records received and issued by the Ministry about Malegaon Bomb Blast cases. The appellant also asked the details of action taken by the Ministry on the submissions in respect of the Malegaon Bomb Blast cases etc. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) held that a mere reading of the RTI appeal papers and the appellant’s RTI application discloses that the subject matter of the information does not pertain to the Legislative Department. The Legislative Department is not concerned with the Malegaon Bomb Blasts cases. The Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice is concerned with certain subjects allotted to it under the GOI (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. The FAA also added that the subject matter of the information sought by the appellant may be available with the Government of Maharashtra and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs as the subject matter concerns them, therefore the appellant would contact the public authorities of the Government of Maharashtra and the MHA.	The Commission noted that as far as appellant’s RTI application is concerned the PIO of the legislative department has conveyed that all the Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India are already available on public domain of the public authority. The CIC also added that as the information is already available in the public domain, there is no obligation on the part of the respondent to provide copies of these documents to the appellant. Regarding appellant’s further questions, the CIC observed that the information sought did not pertain to the Legislative Department and the PIO of the Legislative Department has transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The CIC directed the concerned PIO of MHA to reply to the appellant’s RTI application and if not replied to already. A copy of the order was directed to be provided to the concerned PIO of MHA by the PIO of Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice.
Can copy of attendance sheet in respect of an employee be disclosed to her ex-husband? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking certified copy of the attendance register/ attendance sheet in respect of a particular lady working as Technician (TTA) at Telephone Exchange. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the appellant is a family member of the lady’s ex-husband. The PIO also stated that a decree was issued by the Principal Judge Dehradun in terms of the agreement executed between the lady and her ex-husband before the Family Court. According to it the ex-husband is barred from seeking any information about the lady from the Department under the RTI Act and all such pending applications should be considered as disposed of. The PIO contended that in terms of the aforesaid decree the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act.	The Commission perused the decree issued by the Principal Judge and held that ass per court order the appellant cannot seek any information regarding the said lady from the respondent under the RTI Act.
Complaint regarding non-compliance of orders of the Information Commission Background: The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and during the appeal proceedings, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to supply copies of TA/ DA bills submitted by retired officers for certain number of years. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that statement of the travel expenses claimed by the above named individuals has already been supplied to the appellant. The appellant submitted that the information supplied to him did not contain information about expenses incurred by the above executives in the air travel as hotel stay etc. The appellant demanded that the copies of the TA/ DA bills should now be provided free of cost. The appellant also submitted that the PIO not been complied with the Commissioner’s order within the prescribed period. He also requested for compensation in regard to his air travel to Delhi in the matter.	The Commission observed that the appellant would be given inspection and copies of the TA/ DA bills of above mentioned executives. The CIC also issued show cause notice to DGM as to why penal action should not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the Commission’s order in time. Further, a notice was issued to the DGM to show cause why a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant for air travel to Delhi which would have been avoided if the information was supplied to him within the prescribed period.
Should details regarding complaint filed with CVC be disclosed to the complainant? Background: The appellant had filed a large number of complaints with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under PIDPI. He later filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the CVC seeking copies of the forwarding letters, the investigation reports and the complaint numbers regarding the complaints filed by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he being himself the complainant, the PIO could not have denied this information to him. The respondent submitted that as per the policy followed in the CVC the confidential section which received such complaints never allowed the disclosure of the details of these complaints in whatever form to protect the identity of the complainant.	The Commission observed that the information seeker himself is the complainant and therefore, the desired information should not be withheld from him. The CIC held that the details of the complaints made under this particular scheme however, cannot be disclosed to third party information seeker. The CIC directed the PIO to obtain the information from the confidential section and provide to the appellant including the details of the complaint numbers and the copies of the forwarding letters by which these complaints had been endorsed to any other authority for further action. Regarding the investigation reports, the CIC ruled that the disclosure of these reports would be subject to the exemption provisions.
Can a single RTI application be filed with multiple queries on a variety of subject? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Rare Earths Ltd in which he wanted to know about the details of the cars hired during the year 2011 for the use of highly placed officials and the remaining queries relating to the discrepancy between two sets of tax invoices, one submitted to the RTO office Mumbai and the other given to him under RTI and the payment of money for getting choice numbers were totally unclear. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that he could not be expected to provide any information since the RTI application contained multiple queries on a variety of subjects. Proceedings During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that no PIO can refuse to disclose information on the ground that the RTI application contains more than one request. The Commission agreed with the respondent that the only actionable request is the one relating to the hiring of vehicles from outside for highly placed officials during the year 2011. The remaining queries did not make any particular sense in the absence of any specific details about the tax invoices or about the so called choice numbers. The CIC also added that it is only after the appellant explained what he meant by this that it was clear that he was referring to the purchase of some cars by the company and without the explanation, the RTI application by itself did not give any such sense.	The CIC directed the PIO to provide the details regarding the hiring of outside vehicles for the use of highly placed officials during the year 2011 including the names of those officials, designation, the dates on which the cars had been hired and the cost of such hiring.
Five member bench of CIC hears appeal seeking minutes of meeting of BALCO Background: A Five Member Bench consisting of Shri Satyananda Mishra, CIC; Shri M.L. Sharma, IC; Smt. Deepak Sandhu, IC; Smt. Sushma Singh; IC and Shri Vijay Sharma heard an appeal wherein the appellant had sought Date and Minutes of the 233rd Meeting of the Board of Directors of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO) from the Ministry of Mines (MoM). The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry had refused to disclose this information on the ground that the Meetings of the Board of Directors of BALCO could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. It was informed that M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. have acquired management control of BALCO consequent upon it’s disinvestment on 2nd March, 2001. Further, the proceedings of the Meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company contain confidential matters and the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, do not allow inspection or giving copies of the same to the general public. It was added that RTI Act is neither applicable to M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. nor to BALCO. The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the PIO observing that Government Nominee Directors on the Board of BALCO have a fiduciary relationship with the Company and they are bound to protect the commercial secrets of the Company. Board minutes may contain trade secrets of the Company and hence cannot be disseminated under Clause11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act, 2005. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), Advocate Sen submitted that this appeal is not maintainable in the light of the stay dated 16.8.2011 granted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. He contended that the High Court has stayed the entire proceedings in this matter under the ordinary law of the land, though not under the RTI Act, but it would not be appropriate for this Commission to go into the merits of this matter and pronounce its verdict in the present appeal at this juncture.	The Commission held that in the light of the stay granted by the High Court, it would not be proper to pass an order in the present appeal. The matter was adjourned sine-die leaving it open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the CIC again after the final pronouncement by the High Court, if he was so inclined.
Reasons for not recommending a candidate by SSC even after scoring higher marks Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information in respect of an examination conducted by the SSC in 2011 for recruitment to various posts of Hindi Translators. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no additional candidates were under consideration for being recommended for these posts as assumed by the appellant. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified that she wanted to know the reasons for not recommending one girl bearing the ID No. 2201500057 even though she had 296.50 marks in the examination as against the last recommended candidate having only 265.50 marks for the post of Junior Translator (CSOLS) and 271.25 marks for the post of Junior Hindi Translator in the Ministry of Defence. The appellant also added that if there were records in the SSC to show why this particular candidate was not found fit to be recommended in spite of having higher marks than others in the same category then they should have to inform him about it.	The Commission observed that it seems to be a reasonable request. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the case and find out the relevant records and provide the photocopies of all the relevant records showing the reasons for the decision of the SSC in not recommending this particular candidate for the posts for which she secured higher marks than the recommended candidates.
Addressing the issue of grant of pension through RTI application Background: The appellant had been permanently absorbed from Indian Navy to Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and had some grievance regarding his pension. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Public Enterprises seeking to know as to how he can be defined as a non-Central Government employee, after having served in the armed forces (Indian Navy) as an officer for 29 years; how can he be deprived of his PSU pension after having served with Bharat Electronics for 10 years and 5 months; and how EPS pension of Rs. 283/- per month can be a substitute to a PSU (BEL) executive of E V status after rending a pension eligible service of 10 years 05 months. The Public Information officer (PIO) informed the appellant that under 2007 pay revision, superannuation benefits will be those as indicated in DPE Office Memorandums (OMs) Copies of which are available on DPE website. He also stated that DPE is the nodal Department for issue of Policy guidelines in respect of Central Public Centre Enterprises (CPSEs). Superannuation benefits can be provided by CPSEs provided these are within broad parameters of DPE guidelines/ statutory requirements/ Government specific direction in respect of CPSEs. The PIO further clarified that the PIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish clarification to queries. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which is available with the public authority. The First appellate Authority (FAA) advised the appellant to seek further clarification in the matter from the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that a letter was issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare and BEL management has denied the benefit to the appellant based on that order. The FAA had, therefore, advised the appellant to seek further clarification in the matter from the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. The respondent also clarified that the appellant is in receipt of pro-rata pension on absorption in BEL from Indian Navy for the period severed there. The pension under Employee’s Pension Scheme (EPS) is regulated as per the EPS, 1995, administered by Ministry of Labour & Employment. The appellant is already drawing pension under the EPF Pension Scheme.	The Commission observed that the appellant has sought clarifications, reasons, interpretation in respect of his PSU pension. These queries do not fall under the ambit of definition of “information” as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The RTI Act cannot be used to make Public Authorities act in a certain way. The questions raised by the appellant are more in the nature of a grievance. According to the RTI Act the respondent public authority is expected to provide information as is held by them in material form or under their control. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. The CIC advised the appellant to take up the issue of grant of pension to him, before the competent authority.
Should application forms submitted by students for admission in school be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) seeking the number of Branches of Shri Guru Harkishan Public School in Delhi and the copies of the application forms submitted by students for admission in class X & XII in the said Academic Years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that there were 11 branches of the said school. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that information regarding the copies of the application forms submitted by students for admission was huge and personal in nature. The respondent stated that supply of the information would not only divert the resources of the Board disproportionately but would also violate the privacy of the students who were admitted in these academic years.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the contention of the PIO and rejected the appeal.
Can entire records pertaining to vigilance cases be given a blanket exemption under section 8(1)(h)? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he referred to two CBI cases and requested for the copies of the entire file held in the CVC including the file noting and the correspondence made with the Ministry of Railways and the CBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. He invoked the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the PIO could not have denied the information by a summary order. Any such denial would have to be properly justified through a reasoned order. The appellant also submitted that the entire information sought might not come under the said exemption provision and the PIO should have applied his mind to segregate those records which might not fall under the exemption provision.	The Commission agreed with the arguments of the appellant and noted that the order of the PIO was not adequately reasoned. The CIC held that the matter had reached a trial court for prosecution and the denial of the desired information should be properly justified through a speaking and reasoned order. The CIC also ruled that if it was found that some of the records contained in these files could otherwise be disclosed without impeding the prosecution before the trial court, those records should be disclosed. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the records and find out which of those could be disclosed without impeding the prosecution under way and provide the copies of those. If the PIO decided not to disclose full or part of the desired information then he have to pass a speaking and reasoned order to justify his denial.
Did the registrar collude with the party for not listing the case before the NCDRC? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan seeking information whether the registrar of the respondent organization, in collusion with the opposite party, did not list an appeal for 6 years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the information sought by the appellant is not covered under the definition of information as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant was seeking was seeking an opinion of the respondent. Further, the respondent added that the appeal was listed more than fifteen times before the NCDRC and the appellant himself appeared for the matter and therefore, the query raised by the appellant in his RTI application has no significance.	The Commission observed that the no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
Should the details furnished by a person while filling the application form for examination be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the High Court of Kerala seeking the details furnished by his wife while filling the application form for the examination. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it was personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the purity of the candidates appearing in such an examination is very important and that he suspected that his wife had suppressed many material facts about the criminal and civil matters pending against her while filling out the application form.	The Commission observed that the information sought is personal in nature. The personal details furnished by a candidate while filling out the form for any examination were not meant to be disclosed to the general public. The CIC noted that these details were primarily required for the authority conducting the examination and if once found successful and fit for recommendation for the job for which the examination is held, the details provided by the candidate concerned would assume a public character because based on those details she would be finally appointed to the job in the public authority until then the information is purely personal. The CIC held that such information can be disclosed only if there is a larger public interest to be served. The Commission ruled that the case is between the appellant and his wife, having some dispute between them and the information has not been sought for any public purpose but for purely personal reasons.
Can an application be filed under Madhya Pradesh RTI Act? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University seeking information under the Madhya Pradesh RTI Act. The Public Information Officer provided some information.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that no such Act is in force at the moment. It is the Right to Information Act enacted by the Parliament that is in force all over the country, including the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal must be dismissed on this count alone. The CIC also noted that as per the PIO submission requisite information has been supplied to the appellant. The CIC ruled that the PIO has done so out of courtesy and not under any legal obligation hence the matter is being closed at the Commission’s end.
Is a son required to produce succession certificate to get information pertaining to his deceased father? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking the statement of accounts in respect of his late father’s account for a period of thirteen years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information to the appellant on the grounds that information pertained to customer’s affairs involving commercial confidence and in the nature of personal information held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity could not be disclosed to third party. The respondent also stated that the wife of the depositor had objected for disclosure of any information to the appellant. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the bank had asked him to deposit the requisite fee for getting the statement of accounts but when he went to deposit the fee, the bank informed him that as his mother had objected to the giving of information and the bank would not provide it. The respondent stated that the bank had to take into account the objection raised by the mother of the appellant. In this context the bank had also expected a legal succession certificate from the appellant. The respondent submitted that the matter went to the court and now the appellant has become entitled to a certain portion of the account holder’s property and in accordance with the papers produced by the appellant, the respondent has already taken action. The respondent also elaborated that in respect of the information sought the concerned branch has already been instructed to provide the information. The respondent also stated that part of the information has already been provided and the remaining part would also be given in stipulated time period.	The Commission observed that no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
Does MoEF have any mechanism to enforce the standards set by it? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) seeking details regarding the vehicles running on Indian roads during the last three years in respect of the in those. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of some notifications issued by the Central Government relating to the noise limits of various types of vehicles. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained that the PIO had not provided any information regarding the actual noise levels of the vehicles of all makes. The respondent submitted that apart from the various notifications issued by the Ministry, there was no other record to show the standards nor there was any other record to show the actual noise levels of the vehicles manufactured and running in India.	The Commission observed that the Ministry has issued certain notifications fixing the noise levels of all kinds of vehicles and from these notifications, it was not very clear how these were proposed to be enforced and which would be the enforcing authority. The CIC held that the Ministry must be having the necessary information regarding the enforcement of these standards. The Commission directed the PIO to provide any available document and notification or guideline, laying down the details of the enforcement mechanism for regulating the standards laid down in the various notifications.
Can the valuation report of a company’s assets be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Official Liquidator, High Court seeking information in respect of a particular company. He wanted the details of proceedings, action initiated and also the follow up by the official liquidator including name of debtors and transactions regarding details of debtor’s with the status of each Director, proceedings, outstanding claims and details of other claimants etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that since the information requested was voluminous, he could visit the office of the PIO to inspect the files and collect the copies of documents required after remitting requisite fee, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to issue 85 pages of documents to the appellant after collecting requisite fee of Rs.170/-. The appellant enclosed a D.D. of Rs.200/- instead of Rs. 170/-. The PIO sent 85 pages of documents. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the winding up of the said company in liquidation was ordered by the Honourable High Court. The court had appointed the Official Liquidator as Liquidator of the company with directions to take over all the assets and effects of the company. The appellant stated that this was done with the intention to ensure issuance of copies of Valuation Report received from the company for its assets and effects. The FAA submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 30/- lying with credit of the public authority is being returned to the appellant. The FAA referred the Commission’s further decision (case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001519) wherein it was held that Valuation Report maintained in the office of the Official Liquidator is a commercial secret document in terms of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.	The Commission ruled that the respondent have no disclosure obligation with respect to the valuation report which includes information in the nature of commercial confidence and the appellant has not established any larger public interest for its disclosure.
Secretary DoPT directed to institute enquiry to trace the missing records and fix responsibility Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking copies of documents regarding the extension in service given to a particular person as DG ICMR. He specifically wanted the copy of communication from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare containing the clarifications sought by the DoPT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the documents formed part of the ACC papers and were covered under the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the relevant file containing the proposal for grant of extension to the person as DG ICMR was not traceable in the section concerned. The respondent also explained that the file had not been found in the section for quite some time and he had even checked about it after getting the CIC notice but the section still reported that the file was not traceable. The appellant claimed that he should be provided with the relevant records.	The Commission held that the Cabinet papers including the ACC papers must be disclosed after the decision is implemented and over as clearly mentioned in the proviso to section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. The CIC held that if the relevant file is not available in the Department then there is nothing the PIO can disclose. The Commission directed the authorities in the Department to institute an enquiry to trace the records and fix responsibility for its loss. The CIC also ruled that if necessary, the matter should be reported to the police because this is a very important file and contains the decision of the ACC to grant extension which has been questioned by the appellant consistently. The CIC directed the PIO to place the order before the Secretary DoPT for getting the matter probed.
PIO is not bound to be guided by the views of third party for disclosure of information Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) seeking copy of the letter written by the IBM to a particular mining entity for some violations and the reply given by that entity. The appellant also wanted to know the details of those mines which were located on revenue or forest land in the Nagpur region. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the third party had objection to the disclosure of the information. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that since the third party had not given his consent for the disclosure of the information it should not be disclosed. The CIC held that it was not clear why the reply given by the company to a show cause notice should be considered by the PIO to be third party information under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The entire exchange between the IBM and the mining entity is a part of a statutory exercise and the explanation given to the show cause notice is neither a confidential document nor a personal one. The CIC ruled that the PIO was not right in treating it as third party information within the meaning of section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Commission stated that even if the PIO had consulted the party concerned, he was not bound to be guided by its views; he was expected to exercise his own mind and come to a conclusion.	The Commission noted that the mining activity has evoked considerable concerns from the public in recent years for a variety of reasons including its potential for environmental pollution and illegal exploitation of public resources. The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the attested copy of the reply given by the entity in response to their show cause notice along with the enclosures. If the PIO decided not to disclose the same then he has to pass a speaking order in this context.
Disclosure of certificates furnished by an employee at the time of appointment Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Aluminum Company Ltd Corporate Office (NALCO) seeking information in respect of an employee such as the date of his posting, his present post etc. He also wanted the copies of various certificates submitted by the said officer such as educational certificate, caste certificate and residence certificate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that it was personal in nature and exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that all the information furnished by an employee at the time of appointment cannot be said to be personal as some of these certificates form the very basis on which a person is appointed to the post in the public authority. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the date of the first posting of that said person along with his present designation/ post and the copies of his educational, caste and residence certificates. Comments All those qualifications which are necessary for a government job are liable to be disclosed to an applicant. However, if the information does not pertain to the minimum qualification needed for the job, there would be little obligation to disclose it.
Can CIC give priority to some appeals over others and hear them out of turn? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking the reasons for non-disposal of her second appeals by the Commission and giving priority to other appeals filed after her appeals. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the appeals were disposed of by the Information Commissioners on first come first serve basis. But as per Commission’s resolution, priority can also be accorded by the concerned Commissioner in certain specified circumstances. The various reasons for giving priority can be appellant being too old or infirm, appeals involving larger public issues and so on. The FAA also stated that the appellant’s allegation is vague and non-specific as she has not clearly mentioned as to which appeals were given priority over her appeal. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant alleged that her representative was not allowed to appear for her by the concerned Information Commissioner in the hearing held and her appeal was dismissed on the sole ground of her absence. The respondent submitted that the allegation made by the appellant was not correct and produced a copy of the order passed by the Commission whereof clearly mentions the reasons for dismissal of appeal. The respondent also stated that the appeal was dismissed on merits and the non-appearance of the appellant was not a ground for dismissal of appeal. The appellant also requested the Chief Information Commissioner to initiate penal proceedings against PIOs and FAAs and to pass appropriate orders.	The Commission observed that the appellant has not sought any specific information from the Commission; she has sought action against the PIOs and FAAs without naming the defaulters. The CIC rejected the appeal.
Details regarding vehicles owned by LIC and insured by United India Insurance Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the United India Insurance Company Limited seeking information regarding the number of vehicles owned by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) which were insured by the company along with policy number; user name and address, Insured Declared Value, make and model and registration number etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that that the information sought was very voluminous in nature and compiling and collating the requested information would disproportionately divert the resources of the company. The PIO also stated that the information sought attracted exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act as the subject pertained to the business activities of the company and the disclosure would cause detriment to their commercial interests. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the plea taken by the PIO was not sustainable because LIC was a corporate client of the company and is allotted a code number through which all the data pertaining to the insured vehicles of the Corporation could be accessed. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was scattered over 1400 offices of the company pan India and that they were under no obligation under the RTI Act to compile and collate this information in the format provided by the appellant. The appellant stated that the Mumbai office had already provided the customer number allotted to LIC of India as corporate client and there should now be no difficulty in providing the requested information to him. The PIO stated that in all probability this particular corporate number was not a universal number through which information could be obtained from all the offices of the company and that the number provided was specific to the regional office.	The Commission directed the PIO to verify whether corporate client code number allotted to LIC of India was specific to the Regional office or was in fact universal corporate code number allotted to the entire business of LIC handled by the United India Insurance Company and accordingly provide information to the appellant. The Commission also accepted the argument of the respondent that the RTI act did not cast any obligation on the respondent to compile and collate information and in this particular case information would be provided only if a universal code number is allotted to LIC of India under which data pertaining to their insured vehicles is maintained.
Addressing the issue of non- payment of reward through RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking information as to why the remaining part of final reward had not been paid to him despite several reminders. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the office of DG (Investigation) was excluded from the provisions of the RTI Act as per section 24 hence, the information sought cannot be provided. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that based on his information, IT department had conducted searches in 2004. For providing the information, he was paid Rs. 14,80,000/- as reward but as per the guidelines issued by the IT department, he should be paid Rs 10 lakh more. He alleged that the amount is not being paid to him because of corruption on part of the IT officials and hence, he wants the information.	The Commission ruled that as per the provisions of section 24 of the RTI Act, the office of DG (Inv) has been exempted from the purview of the RTI Act but, section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:provides that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations would not be excluded. The Commission held that CBDT should make internal enquiries to ascertain the veracity of the submissions being made by the appellant. The Commission remanded the case to the Chairman, CBDT for taking appropriate action in the matter.
Can the information sought by one’s spouse be treated as third party information? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking information about her husband such as the details of source of income declared by him, deductions like housing loans, LIC etc. claimed by him. The appellant also wanted to know the certified copies of the ITRs filed by him for the said years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information on the basis of objection filed by the appellant’s husband.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that a wife cannot be treated as third party in the strict sense of the term, so long as the marriage subsists, however after divorce, the legal position changes. The Commission ruled that marriage still subsists between the appellant and her husband, hence it would not be correct to deny information on the ground that the appellant is a third party. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the gross income and net taxable income declared by the appellant’s husband in the last ITR filed by him. Comments As per the section2(n)“third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.of the RTI Act, “third party'' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Therefore, in the opinion of this site, even a wife is covered under the definition of a third party, irrespective of whether the marriage is in existence or not.
Can a complaint filed by a person be treated as his personal information? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking copy of complaints filed against him by a lady. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act on the grounds that the said lady has not given her consent but denied to share any information or documents with the appellant.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has a right to know the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant against him. The complaint filed by the lady cannot be said to be her personal information and the provisions of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;also not apply since the identity of both the parties is known. The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the complaint/ complaints filed by the said lady in Vigilance Department of South West District to the appellant.
Are the details of savings and FD accounts of third party liable to be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) seeking information about the various savings and FD accounts in the name of a certain individual including his wife, sons and daughters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he sought information about the various saving and FD accounts of a family, who is illegally enjoying Below Poverty Line (BPL) facilities from the State Government. The appellant stated that he wanted this information to expose the corruption in the selection of BPL families by the concerned department. The respondent stated that as per the exemption clauses of the RTI Act, the bank is unable to divulge the information to the appellant.	The Commission held that the approach of the respondent is in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that no action is called for at the Commission’s level.
Seeking value of kharif crop harvested for a particular time and insurance premium paid Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (SKGB) seeking certain information regarding the months during which kharif crop was harvested. He wanted to know the total value of kharif crop harvested, the details of insurance company and amount of premium paid etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information was required in context of a matter pending in the Consumer Forum. He stated that he took a KCC loan from the bank and he was seeking information pertaining to his account. He argued that the provisions cited by the respondent for denial of information were not relevant. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was already discussed in a case filed by the appellant before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The respondent added that the Consumer Forum had passed an order directing the respondent to pay compensation to the appellant. The respondent also stated that an appeal had been filed before the State Commission and the case is pending before the State Commission and the matter is sub-judice.	The Commission observed that the section cited by the respondent to deny the information sought by the appellant has no relevance. There is no sufficient reason to deny information to the appellant taking into account that the appellant needed the information for the consumer dispute redressal matter. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information sought in the RTI application.
Should the mandatory approvals received for the Special Economic Zone be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Kandla Port Trust (KPT) seeking copy of proposed plan for Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ), suggestions and comments received by concerned authorities on the said proposed plan and the feasibility study report done by concerned authorities regarding the said proposed plan. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to remit Rs. 722/- towards further fees on account of supply of information. The appellant deposited the required fee. Later the PIO informed the appellant that KPT has recently come to know about the stay orders passed for the land on which PBMPSEZ is going to be developed. The PIO stated that as the matter was under judicial consideration before the appellate Court, the information could not be disclosed and the fees of Rs. 722/- paid by the appellant would be refunded in due course. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the respondent have denied information without proper and bona-fide reason. The PIO submitted that KPT is a Government Organization, wherein the proposed project of setting up of SEZ has been taken up. This project is an ambitious Port Project of National importance which would provide employment to 1.50 lakhs persons and there were certain vested interest groups who do not want this SEZ Project to be implemented at KPT and these groups are using various tactics to stall the project. The PIO provided a copy of the stay order passed by the Honourable Apex Court. He explained that the facts have been twisted and misrepresented and raised in the National Green Tribunal, to jeopardize the setting up SEZ Project. Hence the requisite information/ documents were exempted from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, as the disclosure would harm the competitive position of third party.	The Commission noted that the respondent have no disclosure obligation in terms of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act as the information sought for is related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property and the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the respondent. However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide copies of mandatory approvals received for the Project, including environment clearance obtained from Ministry of Environment and Forests in respect of the aforementioned Project, to the appellant.
Seeking information pertaining to pension saving account and FDR through RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information pertaining to pension saving account andFixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of a particular bank account. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he sought a copy of an affidavit that had been filed along with certain cheque which had been deposited. The respondent stated that the appellant's father was an account holder in the bank but the appellant himself is not an account holder. The respondent explained that one of the sons of the account holder i.e. the brother of the appellant was a nominee of the account holder and this was also mentioned in the account opening form. It was the brother of the appellant who had submitted the affidavit along with certain cheques following which the bank had undertaken the requisite formalities by way of normal banking process. The respondent further stated that there may be some dispute between the two brothers but they had denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The bank's action is as per the law on grounds of fiduciary and third party nature of the information.	The Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal.
CIC directs Bar Council to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking information regarding compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted to know the time stipulations regarding compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act. He also insisted that the website should contain information in Hindi as per section4(4)All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission that the Bar Council should disseminate the information in Hindi on the website, publish an email ID which is regularly checked and the status of RTI application and appeal on the website. The respondent submitted that the BCI has already uploaded all the information on the website. The respondent also submitted that BCI is in process of providing all the information available with it on the website of the BCI. The respondent also stated that whenever information is being sought in Hindi, Bar Council of India is providing the same on the special request of the RTI application and all the transactions of the Council is being done in English language only.	The Commission held that compliance of the section 4 of the RTI Act is a statutory obligation and the compliance of the section in a time bound manner specially in relation to section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;cannot be taken casually. The Commission directed the respondent to comply with the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act and compliance report should be submitted to the Commission in this respect. Regarding the dissemination of information in Hindi through the website and other reliefs sought by the appellant, the CIC ruled that the Bar Council should consider the same as per the government policy, cost effectiveness, most effective method of communication etc.
Penalty of Rs. 25000/- imposed on PIO for unreasonable delay in furnishing the information Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. While hearing the second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant within four weeks. Later, the appellant filed a complaint with the CIC stating that despite the Commission’s order he had received partial information which is incomplete and misleading and that too after two months of the order of the CIC. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had been transferred from the said Ward. The complainant pointed out that the transfer orders of the PIO came after more than four weeks after the Commission’s order dated 14 January 2013 and that the PIO had been directed to provide full and complete information to the appellant within four weeks of the order.	The Commission held that the PIO has not provided any credible explanation for not having complied with the directions of the Commission. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on the PIO for the delay in supply of information. The CIC also directed the PIO to carefully go over the RTI application, the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the earlier order of the Commission and provide full and complete information to the appellant.
Can CIC re-open a case which has been decided earlier by an information commissioner? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC) in which he submitted that he had sent certain e-Mails to the Registry of Chief Information Commissioner for re-opening of the case decided by Smt. Deepak Sandhu (Information Commissioner). Proceedings During the hearing before the CIC the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that Smt. Deepak Sandhu had passed an order (in File No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001938) in which she had held that complete and full information had been provided to the appellant and that no action was called for therein.	The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the rules of the CIC did not provide for re-opening of a matter. Comments In some cases, the CIC has reviewed its own decision like if there has been a mistake of fact or if the third party has not been given an opportunity of being heard. While re-opening the cases, the CIC has held that the power to review its order is inherent with it.
Does the PMO follow any Citizen’s Charter? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information relating to the Citizens Charter Bill 1997, the Rights of Citizens for Time bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill 2011 including the progress made on these bills. The appellant also wanted to have a copy of the Citizen's Charter of the PMO. The PMO transferred the application to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of that department provided some information. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that there was indeed a bill called the Citizens Charter Bill 1997 but the PIO had made no reference to that Bill in his reply. He also pointed out that the Citizen's Charter followed in the PMO was not provided to him. The respondent submitted that the PIO had already provided whatever information was available.	The Commission directed the PIO to find out if there was ever a Bill called the Citizens Charter Bill 1997 and if so, to provide the details of what happened to that Bill. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the Citizen's Charter, if adopted by the PMO, by obtaining a copy of it from them.
Is there any procedure for appointment of Central Information Commissioners? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in which he referred to the selection and appointment of Information Commissioners and the consideration of a particular lady (Smt Ranjana Kumari) for the same. In this context the appellant raised number of queries. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of DoPT and PMO provided some information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that the department had no record to show that said lady had been considered by the Selection Committee. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant specified that his RTI application related to the consideration of the name of that lady for the post of Information Commissioner even though she was not one of the applicants. The respondent insisted that she was never considered by the Selection Committee when it had met for deciding on the names of the Information Commissioners. As per the information that the Department had put up a list of 11 names before the Selection Committee and it is out of this list of 11 names that the Selection Committee had recommended three names to the President of India for appointment as Information Commissioners. That list of 11 did not include the name of the said lady. After this exercise was over, the Department had put up another list of 9 names including the name of the lady in question before the Selection Committee which never considered these names. In this context the appellant wanted the Department to clarify how the name of the said lady was included in the list of 9 names put before the Selection Committee even though she had not applied for this post as well he also wanted to know about the rules in this regard.	The Commission observed that the RTI Act itself did not lay down any such procedure and the central government has not framed any rules about the exact method to be followed for selection and appointment of Information Commissioners. The CIC further noted that until there are such rules framed by the competent authority, it would be beyond the scope and duty of the PIO to speculate on any rule or basis on which this particular name was included in a list put up before the Selection Committee. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case.
Should documents pertaining to bank account of a public trust be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Syndicate Bank seeking information regarding the details and documents submitted by a public trust at the time of opening of an account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the public trust had opened an account without submitting proper documents with the bank. He also stated that the trust is a public trust and he is entitled to know the details of the account pertaining to the trust. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was of a public trust which has no connection with the appellant. The respondent also stated that even if the trust is a public trust, being a customer of the bank, they are entitled to confidentiality. The respondent informed that due to this reason and the fiduciary nature of the relationship they could not divulge the information sought by the appellant.	The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal.
Can an Indian citizen residing abroad file an application under RTI? Background: The appellant was an Associate Professor in National University of Educational Planning & Administration (NUEPA) and presently in United Kingdom. She filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the NUEPA is seeking information with regard to the extension of her probation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per section 1(2) of the RTI Act, the Act applies to the whole of India except the State of J&K. Obviously it does not extend to her current place of stay, i.e. United Kingdom. However, since she is a citizen of India as stated by her in the said RTI application, she may submit her application through Indian Embassy in United Kingdom. Accordingly, her RTI application stands disposed in the present situation. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant did not file the first appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days and filed it after a gap of about 16 months; the PIO had not denied the information but advised the appellant to file the RTI application through the Indian High Commission; even after returning to India the appellant took about three months to file the first appeal without any valid reasons. Further, the reasons given by her in the appeal memo are her personal matters which have no relevance under the RTI Act and hence do not justify the inordinate delay in the filing of the first appeal. The FAA dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in the filing of the first appeal.	The Commission observed that the PIO did not entertain the RTI application on the ground that it was not routed through Indian High Commission at London. However, the FAA did not give any heed to this fact. The CIC also noted that proviso to section19(2)Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.empowers the FAA to condone the delay in filing the first appeal beyond the prescribed period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The CIC held that the order passed by the FAA does not deal with this issue in specific terms and in his detailed order has not given any finding that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal. The Commission directed the FAA to revisit the matter and pass an appropriate order. Comments There is no need to route the RTI applications through the embassy under the RTI Act.
Has the DG (Tourism) Office approved sanction to run a Guest House in Delhi? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know whether the DG (Tourism) Office have ever approved and accorded sanction to run a Guest House in the name of Royal Place for Stay, New Delhi. The appellant also wanted to know the details of a person who had stayed in the said guest house with a Chinese/ Cambodian Girl. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act on the grounds that disclosure of such information might endanger the life or physical safety of the person and would also cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant’s allegation regarding illegal running of the aforementioned Guest House has not been replied to by the respondent. The Commission directed the PIO to provide appropriate reply to the said query and to inform the appellant if indeed such a Guest House exists, whether it is following the mandatory Foreigners Registration Rules and intimate the appellant about the action taken by them.
SSC unable to attend RTI applications for months due to shortage of staff Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking copy of the evaluated OMR sheet of his son. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information to the appellant. The concerned PIO submitted that although he had received the RTI application on transfer, he got transferred out of the section and therefore, he had no occasion to deal with the application. As he was posted back to the section again he searched out the RTI application and the relevant information. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that although he had received the RTI application on transfer on 2 November 2012, he got transferred out of the section on 6 November and, therefore, had no occasion to deal with the application. He further explained that he was posted back to the section again in February 2013. After receiving the notice from the CIC for the hearing, he searched out the RTI application and the relevant information. The CIC noted that there has been considerable delay in the case which is similar to several such cases of the SSC where the RTI applications are simply not attended to for months on end until the matter comes before the CIC. The CIC observed that there has to be some permanent solution to this situation and the same is in the hands of the management of the SSC. The PIO also submitted that he and some others like him also perform the post-examination duty which involves handling of millions of evaluated answer sheets, tabulation of marks and publication of results. Since the examination is a time bound process, they find it very difficult to choose between the examination at hand and the large number of RTI applications received from the candidates on completion of each such examination. The PIO also stated that the piling of answer sheets in large heaps also makes it quite difficult to retrieve the answer sheet of any particular candidate given the extremely inadequate manpower available to these sections. The Commission observed that these were serious practical problems, unless the management of the SSC strengthens the PIO concerned in these sections with additional and competent hands, the PIOs would continue to default on the deadline fixed for replying to the information seekers and subject themselves to penalty under the provisions of the RTI Act.	The Commission directed the PIO to place their order before the Chairman, SSC so that he can take stock of the situation and post additional hands immediately. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the evaluated answer sheet of his son to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant for the inconvenience caused to him because of the inordinate delay. The Commission also held that they were not imposing any penalty on the PIO concerned not just only because he had been transferred out of the section soon after receiving the application but also because of the circumstances stated above.
Can documents submitted by a subscriber for getting the telephone connection be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking copies of the documents submitted by a subscriber Mr. Bhanwarlal Choudhary on the basis of which the telephone connection had been provided to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information related to a third party and is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act unless the appellant is able to show some larger public interest to justify the disclosure. The appellant pleaded that the said subscriber had submitted a copy of ration card as one of the documents for obtaining the telephone connection and he has a written confirmation from the rationing office that the document submitted by the subscriber to BSNL is bogus and the rationing officer has also filed an FIR against him. The appellant also added that the said accused has committed a massive fraud at Surat and the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur has also confirmed to him that two FIRs have been registered against that person. The PIO agreed to furnish the information.	The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information as requested by the appellant in his RTI application.
Asking for information regarding a debit of Rs. 1 lakh from one's own bank account Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Sarvve U.P. Gramin Bank seeking information regarding a certain closed account. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act on the grounds of commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship. The FAA also pointed out that the appellant had not given any proof that he was the account holder of the bank. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is seeking information from the bank about the particulars of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been debited from his account without his knowledge. He also stated that he had sold off some land for which he had received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was deposited in the bank. He claimed that his pass book is showing a debit of Rs. 1,00,000/- but he had not authorized this transaction and thus wanted to get information about this transaction. The respondent stated that the response given by the PIO shows that the amount has been shown as transferred on 10-3-2000 and that the account has been closed quite some time ago. The respondent also stated that the as per the bank’s norms and the vouchers and ledgers were kept for only 8 years and hence the record is not available.	The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA and rejected the appeal.
Seeking copy of dossier of terrorist given to Pak foreign secretary by Indian counterpart Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking copy of dossier of terrorist, which was handed over to foreign secretary of Pakistan by foreign secretary of India. The appellant also stated that he is in judicial custody since July 2006 and does not have any source of income and therefore he claimed exemption from fees as per the RTI Act. The Ministry of External Affairs transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Public Information Officer (PIO), MHA denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant sent a written submission stating that the investigation of 7/11 train blast case was complete and final charge sheet was filed. The charges were framed and 32 witnesses were examined and the trial is in running position on daily basis. Therefore, the information sought could not impede the process of investigation and exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;is baseless and groundless. The respondent also claimed exemption under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act submitting that the documents sought by the appellant is given in confidence and good faith for mutual co-operation between the states and disclosure of the same would affect relation with foreign state. The respondent further submitted that the inputs from intelligence units were also a part of this dossier.	The Commission observed that the disclosure of such information given in confidence to a foreign state for facilitating mutual cooperation on critical issues also containing some inputs from intelligence units would be covered under the exemption clause of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Act. As the trial proceeding is still going on, the disclosure of such information would be denied under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Act as well.
Is campaigning for any election a private matter of the candidates concerned? Background: The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking details of the expenditure incurred on campaigning during the Presidential election by Pranab Mukherjee including the cost of airfare, boarding and lodging. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the President Secretariat had no information in this regard. The appellant also wanted to know the particulars of the files pending before the outgoing President Smt. Pratibha Patil and the files cleared/ approved by her in a particular period. The PIO informed that they did not have such details with them. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated the stand taken by the PIO that neither any information about the expenditure incurred in the campaigning by Sri Pranab Mukherjee nor any information about the number of files pending or cleared by the outgoing President of India in the said period were available with them. The respondent also clarified that, by the time the RTI application had been preferred, the personal staff of the outgoing President had completely changed and the personal section of the new President informed that they had no records to show the details of the files either pending or cleared for the mentioned period.	The Commission held that the campaigning for any election including the Presidential election is a private matter of the candidates concerned. The CIC also noted that if there are no written records available showing either pendency or disposal of files in any particular month, the PIO can provide no information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information as such to be disclosed either of these cases.
Does RBI follow the revised guidelines regarding senior citizens while fixing rate of interest on FD? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seeking information regarding higher rate of interest on fixed deposits (FD) to the senior citizens by the banks. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the notifications issued by Government of India (GOI) amending senior citizen’s definition from 65 years to 60 years, has remained on paper without implementation in the context of the expected facility of higher rate of interest that the senior citizens above the age of 60 should have got after the new definition. The appellant elaborated that the facility of the higher rate of interest is not being given to all the senior citizens. The appellant further stated that he just wanted the RBI to tell him about the status of implementation of the notifications he has referred to in his RTI application. The respondent stated that the appellant has already been informed that the RBI has not issued any instructions in respect of any facility of higher rate of interest to the senior citizens. The facility to the senior citizens is not in the context of any higher rate of interest in the context of income tax rebate. The respondent further submitted that the response of the RBI has been clearly stated but the RBI can give another letter further clarifying matters to satisfy the query raised by the appellant.	The Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the status of the implementation of the GOI notifications referred to in the RTI application in the above context.
Since when is the amendment of the pension rule 49 (2) applicable? Background: The appellant had retired in 1995. He referred to the amendment of the pension rule 49 (2) with effect from January 1, 2006 and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare seeking to know the rules under which he should be getting his pension. He specifically wanted to know whether he should be getting the pension as per the rules prevalent at the time of his retirement or as per the amended rule. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the amended rule had only prospective effect and was not applicable to those who retired before 1 January 2006.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the information provided by the PIO is entirely in order. The CIC held that the appellant is free to challenge the government decision in an appropriate forum if he thinks that he too should get pension in terms of the amended rule.
Can third party information regarding loss of cheque be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking information about a complaint/ information of loss of a certain cheque by an account holder. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant was not connected with the cheque and hence the said information was third party information. The appellant submitted that he was connected with the information sought because the drawer of the cheque had submitted a false affidavit in the court by mis-stating facts and it was in the interest of justice and for correct facts to emerge in the court, that he wanted the factual information from the bank. The appellant further explained that the drawer of the cheque had given an affidavit stating that the cheque had got misplaced, hence the appellant wanted to know from the respondent whether the drawer of this particular cheque had written to the bank about the cheque getting misplaced.	The Commission observed that the appellant had sought information in pursuance of a legal proceeding in the interest of ensuring the correct facts. Hence, the information should be provided taking into account the element ofpublic interestin facilitating court processes relying on correct facts. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant.
Are the details of income tax exemption availed by a school liable for disclosure? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking copies of the order passed under section 10(23) of the IT Act on the basis of which schools were granted exemption in income tax. The appellant also wanted to know about the exemption availed by Sophia Secondary School, Hissar, ever since its existence and information regarding the buses possessed by the said school. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information regarding exemption granted to schools cannot be provided as he had not mentioned the name of any school regarding which he was seeking this information. Regarding the exemption availed by Sophia Secondary School, Hissar the PIO denied the information stating that it is personal information relating to the School in question. Regarding the buses possessed by the said school, the PIO stated that these points did not concern the IT Department and were transferred to the RTO.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the said school has availed exemption from the Income tax under the provisions of the IT Act and this undeniably has impacted the revenues of the Central Government. This information cannot be said to be personal information pertaining to the school. The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the amount of exemption availed by the school without furnishing the copies of ITRs.
Is Telugu Desam party and Lok Satta party registered by Election Commission? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission of India (EC) seeking to know if the Telugu Desam party and the Lok Satta party were registered by the EC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant about the registration of both the parties.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it would be appropriate if the letters showing the registration of these two political parties are provided to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the copies of the letters by which these two political parties had been registered.
Seeking copies of tender bid documents through RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Heavy Water Plant seeking copies of the bid documents in respect of a certain tender invited by the public authority, furnished by a particular bidder. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that after the bid process is over, the desired documents could be disclosed subject to the usual exemption provisions contained in the RTI Act. The CIC noted that in any bid document, there could be some records which happen to be the intellectual property of the bidder and cannot be disclosed; rest all the documents furnished in a tender process can be disclosed. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the bid documents of this particular bidder and disclose the copies thereof to the appellant excluding those documents which were in the nature of the intellectual property of the bidder.
Copy of review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding copy of the review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied disclosure of the information claiming exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and stating that disclosure would harm the competitive position of LIC in the ongoing litigation.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that following the filing of the review petition by LIC of India before the Supreme Court of India, this information is notheldby the public authority and belongs to the honorable Apex Court. The CIC advised the appellant to apply for this information to the apex court as per the rules of the Supreme Court of India.
Seeking detail of leasehold properties transferred by LIC of India under RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking details of all the Leasehold properties that have been transferred by it in the last 10 years (including premium charged and Market Value thereof). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the disclosure of the voluminous information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority hence it cannot be provided. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information sought by the appellant was not held in the format as sought by the information seeker and that compiling and collating of the requested information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority without commensurate larger public interest being met. The appellant pleaded for the disclosure of the information on the grounds that the said properties belong to LIC of India which was a public authority and transparency should be the norm in such matters.	The appellant agreed to reduce the period for which information is sought from 10 years to 5 years and narrowed his request to seeking information only in respect of a building known as ‘Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Building’, Mumbai. The CIC directed the PIO to provide information regarding the number of properties which were transferred by the Corporation along with the tenure of transfer in respect of the above mentioned building during the past five years. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the prescribed criteria for fixing premium for the transfer of the property. Further, the PIO was asked to ascertain if the total premium amount received for such transfers in respect of the above mentioned building for the past five years is available in material form without having to compile and collate the same at huge costs to the Corporation, then the same also to be provided to the appellant. The Commission accepted the assertion of the PIO that they did not hold information regarding the current market value of the properties.
Taking up the issue of appointment of wrong person on compassionate ground Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) seeking information pertaining to compassionate appointment in respect of a particular person (one Shri Abdul Rehman), whom the appellant alleged is an imposter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information that the information sought is third party information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. In respect of remaining points, the PIO held that these were in the nature of allegations and not within the definition of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO reiterated that the information sought is third party information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant alleged that Shri Abdul Rehman was wrongly employed by ECL on compassionate grounds in place of Motijan Bibi, his late mother. The appellant stated that a wrong person was appointed while the son of the lady is alive who was denied opportunity of getting employment on compassionate grounds. The appellant also added that the case of the son was deferred on the grounds of under-age when he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He did not receive any response from ECL and in the meantime another person with same name (Abdul Rehman) was appointed who has subsequently expired. The respondent stated that the entire subject matter of information is based on allegations and the appellant has attempted to enquire into the allegation by using the platform of RTI. The PIO expressed his inability to examine such allegation.	The Commission held that the fact pertains to allegations of procedural irregularities in appointment for which the appellant was advised to approach the competent authority for corrective measures. Regarding the documents, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with all the appointment papers/ records in respect of the person who was appointed by ECL and had subsequently expired.
Seeking copy of arrest warrant through an application under RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information in respect of raid conducted by Delhi Police at the house of a person in relation to a case registered under section 420/406/468/471/120B. She wanted to know whether any warrant had been issued for arresting the said person along with the copy of the warrant. She also wanted the names and the numbers of the police personnel who had accompanied the Inspector at the time of raid and the D.D. number containing the entry of said raid. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished part information but denied the information in respect of the warrant under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the case was under investigation. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they had conducted a raid at the house of the said person but they did not find him at his house. So the next day, they obtained a warrant from the court for arresting the accused and again conducted the raid. The respondent also stated that since the case is under examination of the court at present, the warrant is available in the case file submitted to the court. However, they could not give any reason as to how disclosure of information (copy of warrant) would in any way impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offender.	The Commission held that the respondent failed to indicate any reason in support of their claim that information in question falls under the exemption category of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;. The Commission allowed the disclosure of information (copy of warrant) to the appellant. The CIC directed the respondent to transfer the request for information of the appellant, along with the order of the CIC to the PIO of the concerned court who would provide the information to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information regarding the facts and circumstance under which the raid was conducted at the house of the said person and the discrepancy in the dates of conducting the raid and arrest of the accused.
Varied information covering the entire five year tenure of former President Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President's Secretariat seeking information related to travels of the former President of India, the costs incurred on those, the number of mercy petitions decided by her and the number of Bills she had approved during her tenure. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose any information citing a previous decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) wherein it was held that the RTI application should contain the request for only one item of information. Proceedings During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI application is too wide, covering the entire five year tenure of the former President. The respondent submitted that the details sought by the appellant on all these subjects are not available in a compiled form and would have to be collected from multiple files held by many sections of the President Secretariat. This exercise is not contemplated under the RTI Act. CIC noted that section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI) Act clearly states that a citizen has a right to get only that information which is held by the public authority. In other words, unless the desired information is available with the public authority, the PIO is not required to assemble such information through research and collation. The Commission also observed that some of these details, specially relating to the travels of the former President, an exercise is being undertaken to collect the information and to upload such details in the Rashtrapati Bhavan website for everybody to see. Once this exercise is over and the information is made available in the website, every citizen can find out for himself or herself all such details.	The Commission directed the PIO to find out whatever information is already available in a compiled form on any of these subjects and to provide to the appellant. The CIC observed that some such information, even for a limited period and on only one or two of these subjects might have been compiled in the past in response to other RTI requests. The Commission also directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and to find out whatever information is available in the President Secretariat and provide the same to the appellant. The CIC advised the appellant to seek more specific information in future and not ask for such wide and omnibus details.
List of death convicts where death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking list of death convicts where death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment after consideration of their mercy petitions by the President since 1970 and the copies of the orders. The President’s Secretariat transferred the RTI application to the PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the list of the death convicts whose mercy petitions were considered under Article 72 of the Constitution were available since 1981 only, which would be supplied on payment of Rs. 4/-. The PIO also informed that the files were available only in 11 cases and would be provided on payment of Rs. 22/-. The appellant filed first appeal stating that he should be provided requisite information free of cost since he is in prison for the last 17 years. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the available information had been provided to him by the PIO and that only persons having BPL Card are entitled to get information free of cost. Proceedings During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant reiterated he is prepared to deposit the requisite fee for authenticated copies of the documents sought by him in his RTI application. The respondent submitted that list of cases of mercy petitions since 1981 only and the communication of order in 11 cases only were available. The appellant insisted on being provided complete information since 1970.	The Commission held that the records are not so old that they cannot be traced. The list of cases ought to be available with the respondent. The CIC, in larger public interest, directed the PIO to compile the list of cases of mercy petitions considered under Article 72 of the Constitution along with communication of orders since 1970 and provide to the appellant free of cost.
Can details of persons who met the President be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President's Secretariat seeking to know the names of all the persons from the State of Maharashtra who had met the President of India on some specific dates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant is clearly in the nature of personal information. If some individual citizens meet the President of India on a person to person basis there is no reason why the details of those visitors should be placed in the public domain. The CIC held that only when there is an official meeting, the details of the participants can be disclosed. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the PIO.
Reasons for non- selection in examination conducted by the SSC Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in which he referred to his candidature in the special examination conducted by the SSC and wanted to know why he had not been recommended as successful. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that as per the records available with the SSC, he was considered as a candidate under the UR category and not under OBC implying probably that under the UR category he did not have the requisite marks.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that SSC must have some reason to treat the appellant as a candidate under the UR category and not under the OBC and also for not finding him successful. The CIC directed that the PIO have to give him the copies of the relevant documents showing his caste category and the marks of the last selected candidate in that category. The CIC ruled that if this information is provided, then the appellant would know if the SSC was right in considering him to belong to the UR category and not to the OBC.
Information regarding appointment of employees should be disclosed pro-actively Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding appointment of a particular person such as date of appointment, copy of appointment letter, his salary etc. He also wanted the documents and proof of loans taken by him for construction of house and education of his children. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information is related to a third party who has declined to give his consent for its disclosure. On being queried by the CIC regarding compliance with the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act, the PIO admitted that the information regarding date of appointment, posting(s) of the officer and monthly remuneration could be furnished. He further stated that information regarding loans availed by the employee is personal in nature and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the appellant for seeking its disclosure and hence it was exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.	The Commission held that as stated by the PIO he should furnish the information as above to the appellant. Regarding details of loans availed by the employee, the CIC upheld the order of the PIO stating that the same is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.
Seeking to know the legal validity of the decision of the college Principal Background: The appellant was posted as a peon in Vivekanand College. He was promoted as caretaker some time back but subsequently he was reverted to the rank of peon. When he took up the matter with the Principal of the College, the Principal told him that as he had filed a case in the Delhi High Court, his case for promotion as caretaker could not be considered. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the University of Delhi seeking to know the legal validity of the view taken by the Principal in his case.	The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the University is not required to give any opinion regarding the legal validity of the decision of the Principal of Vivekanand College. The CIC however, directed the College administration to provide copies of the relevant file notings to the appellant.
Can final report of CESTAT Inquiry Committee be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance seeking information regarding the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee in relation to a case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and for the rest he informed the appellant that CESTAT has objected to the disclosure of the document referred to in the RTI application. A copy of CESTAT’s objection was also provided to the appellant. The First Appellate authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO while stating that the third party (CESTAT) has submitted that Justice Khandeparker has directed Member (Judicial) to carry out the enquiry afresh. The old reports are therefore no longer valid or exist in the eye of law. As soon as the fresh report is ready, it can be furnished to the appellant. The FAA held that the process of enquiry has not been concluded and therefore, disclosure of information at this stage stands exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that FAA has illegally and malafidely taken an ex-parte decision on the third party objection of the CESTAT. The PIO, in relation to the request for supplying a copy of the Final Report of the Inquiry Committee had stated that no such report has been received in the Department of Revenue (DOR), whereas the Registrar, CESTAT has already forwarded a copy of the said Final Report to DOR. Therefore, the PIO has provided false and incorrect information deliberately. The FAA has erred in not appreciating that the CESTAT in its reply has nowhere objected to providing copy of the letter under which the said Inquiry Committee Report has been received by the DOR. The appellant prayed for enquiry to be instituted under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act and penalty be imposed on the PIO for knowingly and malafidely not providing the correct and complete information and for not providing copy of third party’s reply before taking decision in the matter. The respondent stated that the FAA had held that the process of enquiry was not concluded at that time. Therefore, its disclosure is exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.	The Commission observed that the 3rd party i.e. CESTAT, has not cited any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information to the appellant. The PIO too has not furnished any reasons for holding that the 3rd party information cannot be provided. The FAA has quoted the provision of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act without giving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/ enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant as requested in his RTI application. The Commission ruled that the PIO has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant regarding the report of the Enquiry Committee. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to the PIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant.
File notings regarding ban on publication of books, magazines and periodicals Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking inspection of all the correspondence and file notings in relation to the ban on publication of books, magazines and periodicals from 1955-2012. He also sought the inspection of files relating to correspondence between centers. The matter was heard before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and an Interim order was issued wherein the Commission directed the appellant to be more specific with her request and to provide a list of requested books, magazines and periodicals about which the information is requested. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant has intimated a list of eight books/ publications for which information has been sought. The respondent also stated that the information regarding three books for which the information is available has been provided to the appellant. Regarding the inspection of the relevant files, the respondent submitted that the file notings/ correspondence contain inputs from IB (Intelligence Bureau) which is an exempted organization under RTI Act. The respondent referred to section 95 of CrPC which states that wherever printed appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153 A or section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State Government may, by notification declare every copy of the issue to be forfeited to Government. The respondent also referred to section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which also regulates upon the similar issue of circulation of books/publication etc.	The Commission directed the respondent to provide the copies of correspondence/ file notings to the appellant after applying section 10 to the information which is exempted under the provision of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Regarding the books/ publications on which the information is not available with the respondent, the CIC advised the appellant to file fresh RTI application to the concerned state government or the concerned department who has issued the notification for regulating the circulation of books/ publications.
Seeking details regarding inclusion of Bull in the list of performing animals Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) seeking copies of all the file noting and other related documents leading to the inclusion of the Bull in the list of performing animals in the official notification issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He also wanted the report submitted by the Committee formed pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court at said date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that matters relating to the subjects were before various courts. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the PIO was wrong in denying the information because there was no express instruction of any court of law not to disclose the information. The respondent submitted that the information was not disclosed because many cases were pending before various courts on this very subject and the disclosure might adversely affect the pending cases.	The Commission held neither the PIO nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has explained which matter was pending before what court and how that has any relation to the desired information. Under the RTI Act, no information can be denied only because it is the subject matter of a case pending before a court of law. Only such information can be refused which has been expressly forbidden by a court of law from disclosure. The Commission ruled that neither the PIO nor the FAA has alluded to any such order passed by any court. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant.
Can particulars of officers who processed the loan be disclosed? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India (UBI) seeking information pertaining to names of officers involved in giving loan facilities to two companies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. Proceedings The appellant as well as the respondent did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The written submission from the respondent stated that they had sought the consent of the account holder under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act, for disclosure of the information but the concerned party had not given consent for disclosure of information. The respondent also stated that the matter was under investigation by CBI and that the disclosure of information could impede investigation.	The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal.
Is a photocopy of the RTI appplication admissible instead of the original? Background: The appellant filed five applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking information relating to the travels undertaken by the Rashtrapati, gifts given by her/him, details of the grants given from the discretionary fund, recommendations given by the Rashtrapati in favour of various officers for their promotion and the number of times the Rashtrapati had addressed the nation and media etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI applications along with the application fee on the ground that it was not an original application but a photocopy of the original. The PIO advised the appellant to send the original application, preferably a typed version. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had the habit of making the same request time and again in various combinations. The respondent also stated that same information as sought in some of these cases had already been provided to him on several occasions in the past. The Commission noted that the RTI Act do not clearly require the citizen to make an application in original duly signed by him in ink but it is expected that he would make the request in an application as provided in section 6(1) of the Act duly signed by him in ink. There is no other way for the PIO to know if the application is genuine or not. However, an RTI application should not be rejected only because it is not in the original and is just the photocopy. As long as the RTI application gives the address of the applicant and is accompanied with the prescribed application fee, the PIO should treat it as a valid RTI application and proceed to provide the information.	The Commission directed the respondent to make a list of the items of information sought in all the five RTI applications and indicate against the queries if the information has already been provided in the past. He must provide the remaining information. The CIC advised the appellant to be careful in future and make all his RTI applications in original with his signature in ink and not send photocopies of such RTI applications. The Commission also held that the appellant must not seek the same information again and again thereby adding to the burdens of the public authority. The RTI Act gives the right to seek information to every citizen but not to waste public resources by repeatedly seeking the same information under various guises.
Seeking information related to Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees through RTI Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in which he referred to some news report, his own submissions relating to the Tibetan refugees in India and raised some queries. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that some of the queries relating to the activities of the Tibetan refugees, fell in the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) while those relating to His Holiness Dalai Lama could not be disclosed being sensitive in nature and falling under the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the issues relating to the Tibetans in India and especially to His Holiness Dalai Lama were not only sensitive but had a lot of implications for national security and India's relationships with foreign countries and the disclosure of this information is not in national interest.	The Commission held that the information relating to the Tibetan refugees in general and to His Holiness Dalai Lama in particular is sensitive from the point of view of both national security and India's relationship with other countries. The Commission, however, noted that some of the information sought is also purely factual in nature such as the total number of Tibetan refugees in India or grant of Indian citizenship to the children of Tibetan refugees born in India. The CIC ruled that if this information is held in the MEA, it should be provided and if it is not held in the MEA, it might be held in the MHA. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide whatever material information is available on those queries which are strictly factual in nature and if such information is not held by them then he should transfer the application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Details of public exigencies for transfer of officials from abroad to headquarters Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking details of the officials in the rank of Section Officer and Under Secretary of the MEA whose tenure abroad has been curtailed under Rule 24(2) of the IFS (PLAC) and were transferred to the Headquarters on account of public exigencies with the dates of transfer to and from the Mission of the above officials. He also wanted details of the public exigencies involved in the said transfers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to supply the information holding that the disclosure of such details of functional requirements for public exigency involved in transfer of the officials in Missions abroad could not be divulged as this might prejudicially affect the security and strategic interests of the country and its relation with foreign states and are exempted for disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant argued that the information should be disclosed for the sake of transparency in the matter of posting and transfer of officials. He also alleged of arbitrariness in the matter of such transfers and the tenure of competent officials was curtailed abruptly while the Senior Officers were allowed to continue in similar circumstances.	The Commission held that the details about the public exigency considerations which necessitated the abrupt/ premature transfer of certain officials from Missions abroad would impair India’s relationship with friendly countries or its security interests. The CIC observed that as per section 6(i) of the RTI Act, the citizen has to specify the information he needs and the appellant has not asked for specific items of information but wants the PIO to do the research in order to find out how many officers of certain ranks have been transferred back by curtailing their tenure under some specific provisions of rules on the ground of public exigencies. The CIC held that this is clearly beyond the scope of the duty of the PIO. The CIC advised the appellant that if he has any specific cases of transfer in mind, he can always cite those and ask the PIO to provide the information.
Under which authority, has the RAW and NTRO been setup? Background: The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking to know about the authority under which the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) had been setup. He also wanted to know about the mechanism in place for ensuring the accountability of both these organizations including the financial auditing of both these organizations. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PMO transferred these applications under section 6(3) to his counterparts in the respective organizations. As both these organizations have been included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, no information was provided to the appellant. After the direction of First Appellate Authority (FAA), PMO, the PIO informed him that the relevant Government order by which the RAW had been set up could not be disclosed in terms of the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant argued that it was not right on the part of the PIO to transfer the RTI applications and desired that the information should be made available by the PMO itself.	The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant, pre dates the establishment of both these organizations and so unless the records relating to the establishment of these organizations have been transferred in totality to the respective organizations, there was no need to transfer the RTI applications to those organizations. The CIC held that any decision to disclose the desired information would depend on the nature of the information and whether it is covered under any of the exemption provisions. The CIC directed the PIO, PMO to revisit both these cases and to find out if there is any authority of the Government notification, ordinance and enactment under which both these organizations had been established and to disclose the same. In addition the CIC held that if any specific communication/ circular/ OM has even been issued in respect of accountability mechanism for these organizations that too should be disclosed subject to the same exemption provisions and if the PIO would decide not to disclose any information, he must pass a speaking order justifying the nondisclosure in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Can information regarding PAN and Account Number of dead person be disclosed to his disciple? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information regarding a PAN card issued to Shri Param Ji alias His Holiness. The appellant also wanted to know the order by which the PAN was issued, the copies of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed by that person along with the copies of the assessment orders passed in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant was absent but had sent a written submission stating that she is one of the disciples of Shri Param Ji alias His Holiness, who expired on 2.6.2009, but only the attachment of Bank Account was intimated to her. The appellant pointed out deficiencies in the procedure adopted by the IT Department in dealing with the Properties / Assets / Accounts of the said person and requested the Commission to pass a suitable order for providing information pertaining to the procedure and application of section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the attachment of Bank account and subsequent recovery of the money after death of EITHER and without intimation to the SURVIVOR. She specifically wanted the documents pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the IT Department for imposing income tax, proceeding adopted for realization of tax, amount of total income tax imposed on him, name of disciples and the name of Banks which was provisionally attached by the IT Department-along with closing balance in the respective bank account and the amount realized-after death of survivor and before completion of cut-off time period of attachment permissible under section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961.	The Commission observed that the appellant is seeking huge information regarding the financial aspects of the PAN Number and the Account Number mentioned in the application. The CIC held that the sought information was personal information which is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC also ruled that the IT Department is holding the information in fiduciary capacity in terms of section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.
Seeking reasons for non- appointment by the SSC Background: The appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by the SSC for recruitment to the ITBP in 2011. He had secured 48 marks and had been declared fit in the medical examination but was not appointed. He found that several other candidates with the same 48 marks had been appointed. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know the reason why he was not recommended for appointment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The PIO advised the appellant to see the website of the SSC to find out the necessary information. Proceedings During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he received the first response from the PIO after six months of filing the RTI application. The appellant added that even after the direction of the FAA, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant. The respondent submitted that some reply had been sent by the PIO but it had not reached the appellant.	The Commission observed that this is a clear cut case in which the PIO failed to provide any information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Even after the FAA passed an order directing that the information be disclosed immediately, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant. The CIC held that the appellant has been put to a lot of harassment. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why we should not impose corresponding penalty on him for his failure to provide the information in time.
Should MHA transfer RTI application concerning policy matters to Central Armed Police Forces? Background: The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking policy regarding wearing decorations/medals/ribbons which were awarded by the Army authority, on ceremonial dress as well as routine uniform by Ex-serviceman who are presently serving in Para Military/ Police Organizations. The appellant also wanted to know whether an ex-serviceman was entitled to any seniority while allotment of quarter/ married accommodation in the Para Military/ Police Organizations. He also wanted the policy on time scale promotion (except ACP scheme) required to be followed by the Para Military/ Policy Organizations in the case of lower subordinates/ below officer rank Ex-Serviceman employee along with the duty hours of lower rank in a day in the department of Para military/Policy organization service. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to all the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) (BSF/CRPF/CISF/ITBP/SSB/AR). The Public Information Officers (PIOs) of all the CAPFs denied the information stating that they are beyond the purview of RTI act, being included in the second schedule of the Act. The appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that the information sought by him was from MHA on policy matters and not from the CAPFs. The FAA upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the information sought was concerning CAPFs because each CAPF have their own policy/guidelines about wearing of decoration/ medal, allotment of quarter and time scale promotion etc. to ex-servicemen.	The Commission observed that the CAPFs’ being excluded organizations have expressed their inability to furnish the information as no case of corruption or human rights violation is involved in the instant case. The Commission held that the information requested by the appellant is in the nature of seeking information on policy matters which the respondent have to provide to the appellant, since the CAPFs were under the administrative control of MHA. The MHA is expected to have information on policy matters concerning the CAPFs under their control. The policy on entitlement of seniority to ex-servicemen for allotting quarters, Policy on time scale promotion to ex-servicemen employees etc. were directly related to the Ministry. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to appellant.

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

README.md exists but content is empty.

Downloads last month: 35

Size of downloaded dataset files:

2.85 MB

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

1.09 MB

Number of rows:

1,218