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


Process of recognizing law colleges: U/s 25 (5), the CIC recommends the Bar Council of India to voluntarily disclose every inspection report of the affiliated colleges/universities recognised in order to enhance transparency in the recognizing process     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: First appeal was addressed to CBI Bhopal, therefore, could not be disposed of by IT Office - CIC: RTI Application replied appropriately; In the absence of appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, no scope of intervention     Right to Information Act 2005    Non-compliance of CIC order - PIO: Office has never received copy of the Order dated 06.11.2023; On receipt of a RTI, the online portal was gone through and accordingly, the orders were found - CIC: Respondent directed to be cautious in future     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought information whether he is eligible for the payment of gratuity as the same was denied on the pretext that he has not completed 5 years of service - CIC: Giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of PIO     Right to Information Act 2005    ACR - CIC empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through proper channel - CIC: Respondent (Tis Hazari Court) to look at the online ACR system (SPARROW by NIC) with a view to adopt it for their own organization     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding preliminary report an Attack Helicopter (IA 2148) crash of Indian Army in an operational area near international border was denied to the former Commanding Officer u/s 8 (1) (e) & (h) - CIC: No public interest involved in disclosure     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    Are the state-funded ‘public trust institutions’ obligated to provide ‘information’ under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Takeaways from the Supreme Court verdict on the Electoral Bond Scheme     Right to Information Act 2005    We will know, we will live - RTI     Right to Information Act 2005   
2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered
FAQ

Can an applicant request the Information Commission to review its own order?

The Act does not specifically confer a power to the Commission for review of its own decision. The CIC has held that in cases of procedural infirmities which may have led to or may be believed to have led to miscarriage of justice or where there is an error apparent on the face of it, silence of law in regard to review does not prohibit it from undertaking review in specific given circumstances. The CIC relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1981 SC 606) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such power inherent in every court or tribunal.

 

A review may be taken up if:

       there is a technical error in the decision or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

       there was an omission to consider certain material facts relevant for the decision or on discovery of new and important matter of evidence;

       appellant was not given opportunity of being heard;

       PIO has not enclosed relevant supporting documents in his comments furnished to CIC.