Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 17 to 18 of 18

Thread: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala

  1. Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala

    Quote Originally Posted by karira View Post
    During one lengthy discussion (not part of a hearing) with a particular IC on the RTI Act, the argument put forward was that Sec 4(1)(d) has been incorrectly inserted - and actually there is no need for it.

    The argument was, that "quasi-judicial" orders are always "reasoned" so need to include them in Sec 4(1)(d).
    Someday someone else will claim that whole of RTI Act is incorrectly framed. Government offices give all information on just asking for it.

  2. #18

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala

    I sent a complaint with evidences to Superintendent of police. SP replied in one word that "there is no truth in your complaint". I appealed to the commission that SP's reply is non speaking. SP did not discuss my evidences produced. Enquiry report was not sent.

    Tamilnadu Information Commissioners are accepting the section 4(1)(d) if we are affected persons due to that decision. We have to prove that we are affected due to that decision. If we have no proof than we cannot insist that section.

    4(1)(d) is a good section. We should practice it. We should draft our petitions accordingly.

    In one case, the commissioner directed the PIO to consider all the enclosures with the petition before giving decision. Enclosures also part of the petition.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


    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 Apple App Store Google Play for Android