Reasons for Govt decisions and Sec 4(1)(d)

[taurus]

Can an information seeker ask a public authority (PA) to provide the reasons for the PA's acts? For example can we ask why a rule was interpreted in a particular way? Can we ask why no action was taken against person who in our opinion has committed a mistake?
There are two diametrically opposite views on this. One school of thought is that asking for such reasons does not fall under the definition of 'information' given in Sec 2(f) of the Act. Another school of thought is that Sec 4(1)(d) enables us to ask for such reasons.

Sec 4(1)(d) states that every PA shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. One interpretation of this section is that it only enjoins the PA to pass speaking orders when they decide anything. That is how they are expected to provide reasons to the affected persons.
There are also several CIC decisions which say that we cannot ask questions such as 'why' 'when' etc.

[karira]

Taurus,

The section 4(1)(d) has been extensively discussed in this forum.

I have used this section very often. Initially the PIO's did not understand this at all (including some who were not even aware of it). During the First Appeal, I could clarify all the ambivalence under this section and could get all information that I needed.

Please see:

IGNORANCE OF SECTION 4(1)(d) OF RTI ACT
Sec.4.1(d)
Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005
In view of subsection 1(d) of section 4

[DineshK]

Thank you Taurus and Karira. I have been denied information many time by the PIO saying that I could only ask the information on the records and not the policy matters etc.

This information will help me in future.

[jps50]

I reproduce relevant portion of news item on what SC has decided on REASON

New Delhi: Observing that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice, the Supreme Court has asked High Courts to give reasons in their judgments or orders.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia said, “ the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said, right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”

[colnrkurup]

To me, Sections 4(1)(d) and 19(5) are the most glorious Sections of our RTI Act. These sections at the hands of a fertile mind can play miracles. Its outcome depend on the ingenuity
and courage of convictionof the information Seeker. Section 4(1)(d) supportted by Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement quotted above can brush aside most of the objections

[abhijeet]

Please inform the no and date of the SC judgment as mentioned above. I would like to mention it in my appeal, as the PIO is always mentioning that " No recorded reason is available" . It is obvious . I inspected file notings etc , where it was required by the corrupt officers to help other corrupt persons -- it was mentioned 'speak' or 'Discussed' etc. No recorded reason was there but nicely helped the corrupt officer .

[taurus]

Kindly read one of the recent orders of the CIC [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_06082007_01.pdf]

This order says that one cannot ask the CIC the underlying reason for the order passed by the CIC itself.

[karira]

Taurus,

The above mentioned order also says that the "reasons" are contained in the decision itself.
Every judicial decision has to contain the reasons or the logical flow of thoughts used by the decision maker to give a particular order. Otherwise there is no point in giving any type of judgement if one is not able to rationalise the order/judgement given.

[taurus]

A perusal of the cases decided by CIC indicates that
under certain circumstances, the PA is bound to give reasons and under certain other circumstances such reasons cannot be given for various reasons such as :

• • Reason not existing on record because it pertains to decisions already taken by an authority;
  • Judicial proceedings;

This category of information include:

• • • Reasons for decisions of CIC
    • Reasons for a decision already taken by an authority since they cannot be regarded as an existing information (if they are not already recorded)
    • Reasons for not taking action on a newspaper report
    • Reasons for observations made by the CIC while disposing an appeal.

On the other hand reasons for various administrative actions are to be disclosed if asked for. Examples of such nature are:

• • • • • • Reasons for cancellation of a tender
          • Reasons for any unusual delay in settling claims
          • Reasons for not granting ACP etc
          • Reasons for delay in receipt of letter
          • Reasons for issuing Govt notification

On the whole it appears that Sec 4(1)(d) should be read only as a part of Sec 4 which casts a duty upon the PAs to publish or put for public view certain information. It is for such information that reasons are also to be displayed for public view.
SImilar provision exists in the UK law also.
So I dont think this provision can be applied for all circumstances.

[clydex]

Originally Posted by abhijeet

Please inform the no and date of the SC judgment as mentioned above. I would like to mention it in my appeal, as the PIO is always mentioning that " No recorded reason is available" . It is obvious . I inspected file notings etc , where it was required by the corrupt officers to help other corrupt persons -- it was mentioned 'speak' or 'Discussed' etc. No recorded reason was there but nicely helped the corrupt officer .

Failure To Give Reasons Is Denial Of Justice: SC
Here is what the Supreme Court said:

1) Giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration
2) Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a system
3) Reasons at least indicate an application of mind

http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2...sc-jun2007.pdf