I am attaching extract from Indian Evidence Act pertaining to public document. I hope it would be useful to our members.
Of late, PIOs are denying information sought under RTI Act with the reason that matter is sub-judice i.e. matter is pending with a court of law or tribunal or consumer forum/commission etc. To counter this, please peruse and use attached note.
Please refer attachment for reasons for not imposing penalties by Information Commissioners.
Many times, PIO casually replies that record has been destroyed or weeded out by referring to record retention schedule of public authority. In fact the record may not have been actually destroyed despite lapse of specified retention period. In most of cases, record is destroyed after a very long time of expiry of period stated in record retention schedule. For example if a register in a bank is required to be retained say for 5 years from date of last entry, but in practice it is destroyed after ...
Personal information of citizens is protected from disclosure, subject to certain conditions, under section 8.1.j which reads as: “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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the ...
Many a times, PIO redirects applicant to website for getting information rather than himself supplying it in hard copy. You can file first appeal based on attachment.
REFUSAL OF INFORMATION U/S 8.1.d OF RTI ACT Section 8.1.d of RTI Act reads as: “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;” To invoke above reason, information should have following characteristics: 1. Information ...
Of late defiance of orders of Information Commissioners has become rampant. The only remedy with the information seeker is to lodge complaint with Chief Information Commissioner, who routinely issues another order for compliance that too after a delay ranging from 6 to 36 months depending upon efficiency and pendency of CIC/SIC. Commissions hardly invoke powers of Civil Court vested in it u/s 18.3 to ensure speedy compliance of its own orders. Hence I suggest that if after two months ...
Information seekers are facing problem of fiduciary relationship as one of the reasons for declining disclosure. I have prepared attached note which can be used in first or second appeal.
RTIapplicants face problem of language of reply, specially if information issought from other states. I had sought information from BBMP [municipalcorporation] Bengaluru and had requested that information be supplied inEnglish. However, I received reply in Kannada and I had to email to my relativeto translate it. I append below relevant extract from judgment of High Court ofUttarakhand. Iinfer that information supplied in language which the applicant does notunderstand is no information. PIO should ...
Blog Categories
Recent Visitors
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
