Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 27

Thread: Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions

  1. Re: Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions


    Thank your for providing an important and useful aspect of the law, which one may not have noticed by reading the act.



  2. #10

    Re: Right to Information Act 2005 Clarifications & Instructions


    Hon'ble members. In view of your friend, opinions, consent and advices can be sought if it is in material form held by public authority. Redressal grievances can made under R.T.I. Act 2005, if grievance arised due unholy practice of PIOs under Transparency act. Grievances arisingout due to conflicting information on same subject, to check the authenticity of information made available under R.T.I. Act 2005 and others likewise. Those grivances which is filed before P. A. can not be redressed under trasparency act but its proccessing for redressal can be sought under R.T.I. Act 2005. Those opinions, consents, advices sought to take policy decisions and formed the part of record of pubic office can be sought under transparency act. If a public authority writes the reason of its decision whether it may be administrative or quasi-judicial can be sought under R.T.I. Act 2005. All the informations which can be sought by parliament or state assembly under any law for the time being in force then those informations can be sought by citizens of India under R.T.I. Act 2005. Division bench of S.C.I. headed by former C.J.I. Justice K. G. Balkrishnan categorically stated in its order that whatever information can be sought by a P.A. from another P.A. same can be sought by a citizen under section 6(1) of R.T.I. Act 2005.

  3. Re: Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions


    I have read your term and condition of RTI, you have mention really nice information which is very helpful for all.

  4. #12

    Re: Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions



    Hon'ble members. R.T.I. Act 2005 was enacted by government of india to enhance transparency and accountability in the working of public authority. But maximum appointment of inefficient retired bureaucrats as C.I.C. & I.Cs. subverted entire R.T.I. Act 2005. It is ridiculous that transparency panel whose job is to be instrumental in providing information to information seekers itself has been stumbling block in furnishing information to seekers as ipsofacto obvious. Thanks to RTI INDIA for raising the problems of information seekers effectively and shielding the transparency act otherwise corrupt executives , bureaucrats and judicial members had made it mere a heap of useless papers. We all RTI Activists are grateful to RTI INDIA website for fighting to safeguard the interest of RTI Activists.

  5. #13
    Posts
    1,248
    Name:
    M K Sharma
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions


    Supreme court judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011, [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009], in the matter of
    Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , have allowed inspection of answersheets......


    [QUOTE=Dr. Pathak;939]Acceptance of RTI application/appealMisc.Copies of evaluated Answer Papers are not to be made available to the candidate or others. As and when answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer paper stand in fiduciary relationship to each other. Hence in fiduciary relationship the disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8(i)(e). Further it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this has been covered under section 8(1)(i) of the Act (Appeal No.ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6th Feb 2006 Case of Ms. Treesa Irish Vs Keral Postal Circle)


  6. #14

    Re: Right to Information Act 2005 Clarifications & Instructions


    Hon'ble members. Judgement delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 in the matter of C.B.S.E. & Anr versus Aditya Bandopadhyay & others have allowed inspection of inspection of answersheets.................is laudable by the RTI Activists from all corners of the country and Hon'ble Sharma Ji your effort is also praiseworthy. Hon'ble friends, on the other side of screen transparency panel (CIC) whose job is to be instrumental in providing access information itself made the mockery of provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005 by wrongly defining the fiduciary relationship in appeal no. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6-2-2006 case Treesa Irish versus Keral postal circle.

  7. Re: Right to Information Act 2005 Clarifications & Instructions


    thanks friend,
    nice post and topic. it will helpful for me.

  8. #16

    Re: Right to Information Act 2005 Clarifications & Instructions


    THIS POSTING IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF Section 2, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 28 of the RTI Act.

    We are discussing issue of complaint against SC & HC for not following Section 4. Similarly this issue is in relation to "Specific" format of Application kept by Bombay High Court. My points:
    1.) Central RTI Act has no specific format.
    2.) Maharashtra has heading Appendix - A Rule 3 heading and general information of Information seeker. I have not came across any Public Authority "INSISTING" for this particular format and they provide information to your application.
    3.) If the application is rejected for some reason it [application] is returned to information seeker "With the fee paid"
    4.) Bombay High Court has "Form-A" similar to Maharashtra Rules, but PIO of High Court or lower courts rejects the application if not in format but do not return the "ORIGINAL" application and fee.
    5.) H C has power to to make rules, we have no objection for this, they can make for them self.

    Now my query is "Your application is not in format under Rules for RTI 2009 and hence application is rejected" Does this reply fits in term of information? For providing this reply they use your prepaid envelop with postage of Rs 25/- min.
    As per rule 20 postage or RTI information fee can be accepted by way of court fee stamps but prepaid envelop is used to ask for payment of 5 or 10 Rs. cost of information even though Rs. 20/- court fee stamps are send with the application with the request to return excess stamps.
    On going through Bombay High Court web some where statement of RTI Applications is published there it is observed almost 60 to 70% applications are rejected. This means all these people have lost their RTI fees plus postage cost amounting to min Rs. 25/- Regd. A.D. postage.

    How to tackle this type of PIO? I need this information to put query on Rules for lower court also.

    Moderators please move the thread if posted in wrong thread.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android