In a significant decision of Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016, Calcutta high court has ruled that “It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty.”. The Department cannot claim that “responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers”.
The court further added that “In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen.” Read more ›
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 ›
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 ›
Central Information Commission taking recourse to the Delhi High Court Judgement, Union Of India And Ors vs Adarsh Sharma of 9 October, 2013 directed Information from Exempted Organisations to be given ‘to an extent possible’.
This was decided even though the Exempted organisation submitted that information was denied as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, were-in CRPF is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Read more ›
The fate of B.S.E.S as public authority is still not settled and the matter has been stayed by the Delhi High Court in Stay order 23.1.2007 in W.P. (Civil) No. 544/2007 (BSES Rajdhani Power Limited vs. CIC).
The commission decided that this matter be listed for hearing once the Delhi High Court pronounces its decision.
Following the privatisation of Delhi’s power sector and unbundling of the Delhi Vidyut Board in July 2002, the business of power distribution was transferred to BSES Read more ›