The information about his wife income tax documents probing for the alleged income and expenditure during the wedding was denied under RTI. However, as his wife has filed FIR under section 498A/406 IPC, Delhi High court allowed access to the document considering that as the criminal proceeding filed by the wife is still pending and her cross-examination is not complete, the husband can cross examine her with regard to her income-tax returns and/or the husband can file an appropriate application for production of the relevant income tax records.
The information sought by the Husband in reference to wife income tax documents regarding action taken report in reference to his letter was rejected on the ground that information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act, 2005’).
The decision of the high court can be read from our wiki segment here! Read more ›
In on the decision Appellate Authority of Central Information Commission has decided that a citizen is obliged to make an application under the RTI Act only before the CPIO of the concerned Public Authority.
The provision under Section 6(3) has to be read in the context of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act. In other words, Section 6(1) lays down a rule while Section 6(3) is an exception. If every applicant is allowed to submit all petitions concerning various Public Authorities to one single Public Authority, then virtually every Public Authority would be rendered into a Post Office, whose only task would be to transfer a RTI application to the concerned CPIOs. This will put the whole system unworkable. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature while enacting Section 6(3) that each and every person can submit applications seeking information wherever he likes. Read more ›
‘Own records are not third party information.’
Central Information Commission objected to Public Information Officer interpretation that asking for information about self through RTI is Personal information and is exempt under Section-8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The PIO had rejected the application on the grounds that information about own file is third party information under RTI Act and cannot be disclosed.
CIC directed that PIO needs to understand that section 8 (1) (J) applies only in those cases wherein the information is sought by a third party, in the present case the information seeker is seeking her own information and in such cases the exemption cannot be applied.
Read more ›
Information Officer is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. In the decision Kerala HC – Mohd Saiyad Vs State, decided that though RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing, if the information sought is not a part of the record, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast any obligation, to collect such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.
The Information Officer is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions.
Read more ›