Select the RTI Issue of your blog post
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.
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
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
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
Appellants or complainants have experienced that ICs order supply of information, but they do not penalize PIO or FAA. Under such circumstances I would request aggrieved appellants or complainants to address attached letter to concerned IC. Suitable changes can be made to suit individual case. If large numbers of information seekers address such letters, over a time it will have positive and desired effect. After all in democracy, numbers count.
Please also refer http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/...-act-2005.html
I am attaching list of court decisions supporting that penalties are mandatory under RTI act.
Assistance in Inspection under RTI Act 2005 Normally PIOs or First Appellate Authorities refuse to permit assistant of choice of applicant during inspection. Section 7.4 of RTI Act states as under: “Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
Of late I am receiving messages seeking clarification as to how to calculate period within which information should be received, where other charges are payable. I clarify as under:
Suppose an RTI application contains following types of queries:
a. Queries which require no other charges:
Information should be mailed within 30 days from the date of receipt by PIO. These queries should not be delayed for other charges payment.