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


CIC: Initially the information was denied by PIO stating that the information sought does not involve any public interest - CIC upheld the reply of FAA that since the points raised are interrogative in nature, information cannot be provided; PIO cautioned     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about the new Village Level Entrepreneur - CIC: PIO should not have kept the RTI applications pending for more than a year - CIC cautions the PIO to be careful in future; Directed to send a suitable reply to the appellant explaining the delay     Right to Information Act 2005    Details of the employees appointed through Open Recruitment by submitting NOC during the period from 2006 to 2016 was sought - CIC: Appellant has sought information relating to many third parties and has failed to substantiate any larger public interest     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant: Information such as Appointments, Postings, Promotions etc. relate to public activity - PIO submitted a revised reply addressing the appellant’s contentions in her second appeal which she claimed to have not received - CIC: e-mail the letter     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Final results of promotion of selected employees i.e. final marks secured of selected candidates should have been published for the sake of transparency and accountability; Appellant was entitled to know the status of petition regarding low APAR mark     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: No reply has been provided by the then CPIO within the time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act and also no substantial explanation for such delay was tendered by the present CPIO during the hearing; SCN issued for imposing penalty under RTI Act     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    Impact of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 on the RTI Act, 2005     Right to Information Act 2005    Rule 12 of RTI (Subordinate Courts & Tribunals) Rules is not inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) and the provisions of the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) focuses primarily on protecting workers in the workplace     Right to Information Act 2005   
FAQ

How should a PIO deal with applicants who repeatedly file applications?Certain applicants file applications repeatedly for whom the term Chronic Information Seeker, or a Serial Applicant has been coined.

(a)    A PIO should never feel irritated by such applications which may sometimes comprise of frivolous queries. A PIO should not be biased or guided by the hearsay impression of the applicant.

(b)    Such applicants usually do a complete homework and have a very good understanding of the Act. The only remedy available for the PIO is to know the Act thoroughly.

(c)    Each application should be examined taking a neutral view and a legally sustainable decision should be taken which can be defended before a higher forum.

(d)    The application tracking system must be geared to keep track of the each and every application filed to avoid missing an application which may give an excuse to the applicant to file a complaint/appeal for imposition of penalty.

(e)    Multiple applications tend to be filed which may appear to be similar, if not identical. A complete and thorough reading of the application must be done to avoid missing any question which may later be claimed as a ground for imposing penalty.