DoPT circulates decision of Bombay High Court on definition of "information"

**karira** · 06-10-2009, 10:24 PM

In a circular dated 01 June 2009, DoPT has informed various authorities about a Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision which has stated that:

"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating uthorities and cannot properly be classified as information. "

The circular is attached to this post.

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

**vnatarajan** · 01-08-2010, 05:24 PM

Sponsorer

Can someone well versed on tis try to extract relevant part of judgment cited & Om issued as per the information my friend KSrinivasan of Railways has furnished:

"Judgment of GOA high court issued in Apr 2008. Latest DOPT guidelines issued on 5th Oct 2009 to PIO/AA clearly states para 9 PROVIDING REASONS FOR DECISIONS. The public authorites take various adminstrative and quasi judicial decisions which affect the inteerests of certain persons. It is mandatory for the concerned publi authority to provide reasons for such decisions to the affected persons.

HIS SUGGESTION: "RTI Applicants instead of using the words "Why" should simply ask " Kindly provide reasons for .."

**karira** · 01-08-2010, 05:48 PM

V Natarajan,

Please read my comments about DoPT circulars and how to handle them, in this post:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/9338-o...tml#post105428

**vnatarajan** · 01-08-2010, 06:03 PM

Thanks Karira.

I liked the remarks therein:

"So, please follow the same attitude. When anyone quotes a DoPT circular, just say "Oh that is only a circular. Is it a Law or in the Act somewhere ? Has it been Gazetted ?".

Same rebuff I have given in some of my queries. I use the CPIO's submission itself in the issue I am fighting out (Injustice to pre-2006 Pensioners) where he conveys to defend himself (for violating the Cabinet Decisions) stating that "OMs are only calrifications/ modifications and hence they do not require Cabinet Approvals"- It suits him to answer so.

In my appeal I have used the same explanation to point out that all those "clarificatory OMs" are nothing short of waste paper and hence pensioners need not be made to suffer from them as they are not mandatory Rules/ Cabinet decided verdicts!

Anyhow- underdogs are Citizens!

**pooorabyoura** · 01-09-2010, 01:54 PM

OMs may be so much waste paper for you and me, but for subordinates in that O, these OMs are orders which the subordinate cannot ignore, violate, pass judgment on or remark upon.