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


Information pertaining to the credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. & E-Auction was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: It pertains to the personal information of a third party; disclosure has no relationship to any public interest     Right to Information Act 2005    Information in the context of a fax message of Naval Selection Board for transfer of a Scientist ‘B’ & action taken on it was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - The CIC did not find any aspect of public interest in the arguments of the Appellant     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: FAA to inquire into the matter of the ‘missing’ RTI application to ascertain whether the RTI application was actually not received or the PIO had taken a plea to deny information to the appellant; If required, appropriate action against the officials     Right to Information Act 2005    Information points pertaining to failed ATM transaction & reasons for non-compliance of RBI Directives - CIC: Information pertaining to names, designations & nature of duties discharged by government officials cannot be classified as personal information     Right to Information Act 2005    CBDT: There were a large number of issues in handling the online RTI applications due to technical problems & unskilled manpower required to be addressed for effective functioning of the RTI mechanism - CIC cautioned the PIO and did not impose a penalty     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO forwarded the complainant’s RTI application under a bona fide belief that a reply in this regard would be provided by the Company - CIC: There was no conscious or deliberate attempt by the respondent to withhold or deny information to the complainant     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    Inquiry held and the action taken by the Government following the Mumbai attack     Right to Information Act 2005    Union Ministry of Defence directed to disclose Joint Operational Doctrines under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    There are a host of issues for law students to do research in respect of the RTI Act, 2005     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.