In an unprecedented decision, CIC imposed a penalty over RTI Applicant even though the RTI Act do not provide for the same. Central Information Commission while deciding the case recorded that “Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission record its contempt against RTI Applicant for misusing the RTI Act against the school child and imposed a penalty of Re. 10/ which is to be paid to the Principal of the School”.
Commission, also directed the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of Rs 1000 each be paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy.
The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Read more ›
Medico Legal Case (MLC) can be disclosed under RTI Act after applying third party procedure. The PIO has rejected the information stating that MLC is a legal paper and for obtaining this the person who is nominated and person concern can only get the copy of it. Without MLC no it cannot be provided. Even the First Appellate Authority has rejected the case claiming exemption under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing both sides directs the PIO to follow the third party procedure u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act and to take a decision based on the objection/consent of the third party and inform the Appellant accordingly.
What is Medico Legal case (MLC)..
Read more ›
After his son not getting good marks in the MBBS exam, father filed RTI to obtain copy of question paper and answer keys and disclosure of marks from the University. RTI Applicant stated that supply of the documents after completion of the admission process would be embarrassing, humiliating and prejudice to the life and liberty of his son, therefore if he is given a speedy access to the said documents, then his ranking is likely to move up. However, Central Information Commission did not agree to this and recorded that “Complainant has failed to prove how the non disclosure of information affects the life and liberty of his son. (If you want to file RTI Online, do read our guide on how to file RTI online here) His son getting poor marks and his son’s belief in having done well in Botany and Zoology is not good enough to invoke the ‘life and liberty’ clause. It is not proper and correct to treat every application for disclosure of marks sheet or key etc, as life and liberty related application. Hence that plea was rejected by CIC. Read more ›
First Appellate Authority decided the case without inviting RTI Applicant for hearing. Central Information Commission remanded back the RTI case to First Appellate Authority (FAA) with directions to decide the appeal after affording an opportunity to the appellant for hearing. Not giving personal hearing to the appellant to make their submissions is against the principles of natural justice and even the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus, it is not legally tenable. (Learn how to file RTI Online here with our simple guide)
Earlier the CPIO vide his response had simply denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 without mentioning as to whether the comments of the Third Party was invited or not. Surprisingly, FAA mentioned that the procedure laid down relating to third party has been followed by the CPIO and the parties concerned have given in writing that the applicant has family disputes and business rivalry with them and as per the Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, no such information may be given to him. CIC recorded that “the views of CPIO and FAA are in a divergent direction. As such, these are not legally tenable.” Read more ›
In yet another case Central Information Commission has allowed inspection of documents pertaining to third party citing larger public interest even though third party has said that his file should not be shown to anyone. The RTI applicant argued that the matter was a matter of interest to the public because the railways had indulged in selective decision making and discrimination. The appellant said that the railways had decided differently in the matter of one person, hence the issue was of interest to those who had not been given the same treatment. CIC found the argument of the appellant tenable and allowed inspection of the documents. (If you have any questions relating to third party clause, please go to our forum here and post your query, our experts shall reply to you).
The learning for PIO is that if the third party objects to giving the information, the Public Information Officer must take his objections and see if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1) apply. Even, if any of the exemption clauses apply, the PIO is then obliged to see if there is a larger Public interest in disclosure. If none of the exemption clauses apply, information has to be given. Read more ›