A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
 
 
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
Menu
Web-Site Launch Photographs
RTI Act, 2005
Hindi
English
Other language
Rules
Central rules
State rules
Guide book
DOPT circulars
Important judgments
Supreme court
High court
Tracking the appeal at CIC
Link to Information Commission
Link to other Organisations
For an Applicant
FAQ
For a PIO
FAQ
Feedback
Books on RTI
Join us


Appellant: Denial of information u/s 8(1)(h) is rather bizarre as the case pertains to a period dating back 22 years - CIC: PIO mechanically invoked the exemption on the premise that de novo inquiries are pending against the Appellant; Inspection allowed     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought copy of remarks, noting of concerned authorities on her 9 letters, copy of show-cause notice issued to her husband Lt. Col. Arun Gulati and copy of the said officer’s reply - CIC: The denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) is not appropriate     Right to Information Act 2005    Copies of testimonials submitted by the candidates at the time of their appointments was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - CIC: Mere allegation of corruption cannot imply larger public interest; No further intervention of the CIC is required     Right to Information Act 2005    In the light of the categorical submission made by the MHRD regarding the status of the Lawrence School Lovedale as a Public Authority, the CIC directed to disclose the information regarding the approval of the buildings, number of canteens/ hostels, etc.     Right to Information Act 2005    Instead of transferring the application, the PIO requested the appellant to approach the bank for obtaining the information - CIC counselled the PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur; PIO to transfer the application to the bank     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC was appalled to learn about the manner in which the replies were provided & the hearings before it were handled by the Office of the Commissioner CGST, Shillong which indicated that there was complete negligence & laxity in dealing with RTI matters     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty     Right to Information Act 2005    What are the criteria for selecting the Information Commissioners?     Right to Information Act 2005    Inquiry held and the action taken by the Government following the Mumbai attack     Right to Information Act 2005   

Comments

Cabinet Notes and materials related to Bills tabled in Parliament must be placed in public domain
February 11, 2019 Pre-legislative consultative process should be implemented for proposals introduced in Parliament   more>>
The Information Commission should not be reduced as post retirement seat for the bureaucrats
December 23, 2018 Why most of the Information Commissioners are ex-babus ?   more>>
Should religious institutions provide information to the RTI applicants?
December 9, 2018 Hyderabad High Court holds unaided religious institutions not covered under RTI Act   more>>