A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters


CIC: Delay appears to be inadvertent as it is not a case of non- response but the PIO exercised his judgment and it would not be appropriate to take penal action for an error in understanding the provisions of the RTI Act; Penalty proceedings dropped     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought information regarding the HRA, salary slip and penal rent - CIC: Reply of the FAA shows that other points of the RTI application were suitably replied - CIC directed the PIO is directed to provide the pay bills for the period available     Right to Information Act 2005    Copy of certificate of registration u/s 12A were sought by a Trust - CIC: Issues raised in the Appeal cannot be adjudicated upon within the confines of the RTI Act; PIO cannot be compelled to provide such information which does not exist in their records     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about examination conducted by IAF for various posts - CIC: The RTI application was filed by Ms Latika Chitre and the subsequent appeals were filed by a different person, M P Shinde - CIC: The second appeal is not maintainable     Right to Information Act 2005    Addition of surname in son’s name in service record - CIC: Delay of 05 days in transferring the RTI application from Min of Defence to Dept of Military Affairs and a further delay of 15 days to the PIO - CIC: PIO cautioned to strictly follow the timelines     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Appellant has placed the facts of the case in a cumbersome manner - CIC: Appellant is in a habit of narrating grievances and seeks for information as a passing reference which PIO cannot be expected to deduce and interpret to his satisfaction     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    Analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for the year 2020-21     Right to Information Act 2005    Fate of the complaint filed before the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission     Right to Information Act 2005    Entries in Birth and Death Register are public documents and cannot be termed a 'Third Party Information'     Right to Information Act 2005   
FAQ

How should the term 'substantial' be interpreted in substantial financing?

The term ‘substantial’ has not been defined in the Act. The Act does not talk of absolute or majority control, but only of substantial stake. As per the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary the term ‘substantial’ means “large in amount or value; considerable”. What amounts to “substantial” financing cannot be straight-jacketed into rigid formulae, of universal application and each case would have to be examined on its own facts. It only means that it should not be trivial. Whether the percentage of funding is “majority” financing or not, or that the body is an impermanent one, are not material. Equally, that the institution or organization is not controlled, and is autonomous is irrelevant. The tem “substantial” is akin to “material” or “important” or “of considerable value”. In other words, the extent of funding by the appropriate Government should be such that in its absence, the functioning of the entity is rendered difficult. The definition of ‘Substantial financing’ as per other Acts may be relevant, depending upon the circumstances of the case.