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


CIC: Proper reply was not provided to the appellant by quoting Sec 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) exemptions which are not applicable as the appellant wanted information pertaining to herself - CIC passed stricture against the GM, FCI for quoting inappropriate section     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Though there was a delay in delivery of information, but it cannot be concluded that there was any malafide intention on the part of the Respondents to obstruct free flow of information - CIC: Respondents cautioned to exercise due care in future     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The documents sought by the Appellant are documents of commercial bid, the agreement & bank guarantee both of which are not exempt; Technical bid may not be provided if it is not available in public domain     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: There is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications - CIC: It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant was not pressing the matter further as he was satisfied with the information provided & his grievance was redressed - CIC: The framework of the RTI Act restricts the jurisdiction of the CIC to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: As per Section 4, all CDPOs of ICDS project all over the country to voluntarily publish the month-wise expenditure incurred for functioning & maintenance of Anganwadi centres, names of the beneficiaries, details of benefits regularly on their website     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 are a host of issues for law students to do research in respect of the RTI Act, 2005     Right to Information Act 2005    Proposal to amend the RTI Act to vary the salaries payable to the Information Commissioners     Right to Information Act 2005    Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act to be amended by the Personal Data Protection Act, 2018     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.