Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Public Authority can deny information in a particular form but it cannot refuse totally. Section 7 (9) does not even confer any discretion on a public authority to withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclosure. It only gives discretion to the public authority to provide the information in a form other than the form in which the information is sought for, if the form in which it is sought for would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006], with regard to Sec 7 (9) of RTI Act, had observed as follows: “In fact there is no provision in the Act to deny information on the ground that the supply of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority……” Read more ›
Can one make RTI as a hobby? Especially when there is no public interest? In the hearing at Central Information Commission, an RTI applicant stated that ‘Filing RTI is my hobby, and there is no public interest in those RTI”.
CIC came heavily on to the applicant and stated that such hobby of filing RTI without any public interest causes loss of both time and energy of the Government and it causes disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. (Clause 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005)
CIC warned the applicant not to waste time and resources of the public authority, or else Central Information Commission shall not take cognisance of such appeal or complaint. Read more ›
After filing 30 applications on the same subject with different names but with the same handwriting, Central Information Commission came heavily by warning to desist from misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for settling his personal scores with the respondent. CIC further stated that “In case the appellant continues to prefer RTI applications which are vexatious and frivolous in nature with a view to disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, then the PIO will be free to deny information under the provisions of section 7 (9) of the Act.”
It is certain that this variety of the vexatious and frivolous petitions is not going to serve the interest of the Right to Information ⎯ the self-serving, pious protestations of serial petitioners such as this one notwithstanding.
NDMC, the Respondent informed that appellant who has filed at least 30 RTI applications in different names with similar queries, having the same handwriting regarding pending payment of M/s Gyan Const Co. against work done by the agency. Read more ›
While Public Information Officer denied the information on a question asked regarding steps taken for implementation of the DOPT guidelines regarding proactive disclosure of tours of officials of the rank of Joint Secretaries and above to implement and copies of all tour orders issued and details of TA/DA paid for each of Joint Secretaries of Central Vigilance Commission by quoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, however, on the other hand First Appellate Authority (FAA) has brought in a totally new provision by denying information u/s 8(1)(g) by quoting a CIC decision. FAA denied the information without giving a hearing to the RTI Applicant. What are your views? Use the comments in the article to post. You can discuss it at our forum too.
The Appellant had argued in front of the CIC that the FAA by doing this, has brought in a totally new provision for denial of information which is not tenable as he was not allowed an opportunity to question this and he was not given a hearing. He further submitted that the CPIO vide letter dt 2.8.13 has already provided information relating to foreign and domestic travel of officers of the rank of JS and above. When such information has already been provided, he would be satisfied if similar information is provided in respect of the remaining staff also. Read more ›