Blog Archives

Opinion given by the Legal Officers / Branch of the public authority cannot be hidden under RTI

Opinion given by the Legal Officers

Opinion given by the Legal Officers

An opinion given by the panel advocate of a public authority can be denied under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act in view of the fiduciary relationship involved.  However, the same is not the case with the opinion given by the Legal Officers / Branch of the public authority.

The public authority claimed that the opinion given by the Delhi Legal Branch was not provided as it is an internal document of the bank.

Read more ›

Ministers under RTI

minister-under-rtiIn a big decision, Central Information Commission have brought Ministers under RTI and declared Ministers in the Union Government and all State Governments as ‘public authorities’ under Section 2(h)of the RTI Act. The Ministers have a duty to inform the people about their efforts to fulfill the promises they have made, through Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act and also to furnish the information as sought by their voters under other provisions of RTI Act. The commission has directed that a Public Information Officer within two months from the date of receipt of this order be appointed with each Minister Office.

The Commission strongly recommends to implement the recommendations of NCRWC, Second ARC and replace the ‘oath of secrecy’ with ‘oath of transparency” so that the Minister will respect the right to information of the citizen, which was passed by the Parliament and considered as fundamental right intrinsic in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and be answerable/accountable to the citizens. Read more ›

Ninja facts about RTI

Facts about RTIThis compilation of important CIC decisions is for use by various stakeholders including public authorities (APIOs, PIOs and Appellate Authorities), Civil Society and Citizen groups as comprehensive guidelines for effective implementation of the Act. Originally these have been published by Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), New Delhi. We have curated the decisions listed there for crisp and easy comprehension of a common man.

We have attempted to compile them in one table format which is easily searchable. The last column also contains the citation details which can be used for citing at various places. We hope you shall find them useful. If you have more such cases to add, do let us know and we shall update them. Also if there are update to decisions posted in the compendium, may also be brought to our notice at forum! Read more ›

Treat the RTI application as a complaint- rules CIC

Treat the RTI application as complaint
CIC has directed to treat the RTI application as a complaint which sought to know the action being taken against those who register agreement to sell/Release deed after 5.00 pm in Sub-­registrar office. When the applicant went to First Appellate Authority (FAA),  has held that the information sought seems to be in the nature of grievance and advised the Appellant to file a complaint so that the case would be investigated and brought to its logical end.

The Commission however, recommended to the public authority Revenue Department, GNCTD to treat the RTI application itself as a complaint and after completion of the enquiry, the action taken report to be shared with the Appellant. (We are building RTI Wiki, if you are interested in contributing, please tweet #RTIWiki, we shall get back to you) Read more ›

Presence of RTI Applicant not essential while hearing appeal- Rules CIC

presence of RTI Applicant

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed the order stating that because the RTI Applicant did not appear, it is assumed that RTI applicant has nothing to say and thus the appeal is disposed of. The RTI applicant complained that the First Appellate Authority sent hearing notices and when he went to his office, he would not facilitate the hearing. The hearing of the first appeal was postponed for 5 times because of which he has to suffer lot of inconvenience and lose all working days. Information Commission noted that this reflect a non ­serious attitude towards the first appeal hearing and amount to violation of statutory provisions which is limiting the period of hearing to 45 days and passed the order that after giving the due notice of hearing, it is the duty of the FAA to consider the written appeal of the appellant even if he is not present on the date of hearing and decide on the basis of the material before him whether the appellant is present or not.

The RTI Act, 2005 provides the first appeal before the designated senior officer of the same Public Authority, with a view to provide a quick hearing and address the problems/grievance, if any, and clarify the doubts of the RTI applicant. Compelling the appellant to take 5 rounds for just first appeal was not proper. The Public Authority has a responsibility under the RTI Act to conclude the hearing. Read more ›

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and join our 390,031 subscribers.

Meet RTI Activist