Though quite old member, this is 1st posting.
1. Information seekers, the applicants, are invariably the tortured persons and are alone, while the information furnishing person has an army of personnel for his support, who are expert in advocacy and very often practicing advocates. Result is that the applicant is in the disadvantageous position and the Respondent successfully misguides the CIC/SIC, and the applicant is deprived of Justice. I feel the Commissioner should virtually act as advocate for the applicant. It should also b fathomed if procedure for review of the Judgment b incorporated in the Act.
2. An scrutiny of Judgments shows that the Sec. 19 & 20 of the Act are not being invoked by the CIC/SIC even in the most deserving cases. This leniency is responsible for encouragement to not furnish the information or to furnish quite late, to furnish irrelevant, caigey, incomplete and wrong information, forcing the applicant to waste time/energy/money in attending the commission office times and again, for which he is not compensated.
3. Judgments of CIC/SIC are not consistent. Variation is seen in the attitude of commissioner to commissioner or sometimes the concerned respondent, while the judgment should be like mathematics where 2+2 is always 4, as the Act is very clear and precise.
With regards, opinion of fellow members shall be keenly awaited