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


Appellant: Shri Harsh Vardhan, MLA was reimbursed Rs 70,000/- for dental implant, while he was not - Respondent: dental implant are not reimbursable as per Medical Attendance Rules; reimbursement was allowed to MLA upon recommendation by MAIDS     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding the accounts & transactions of two parties were sought by appellant alleging that they were involved in submitting 3 forged bank guarantees - CIC: denial upheld as no larger public interest established by appellant for disclosure     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant claimed non-compliance of disclosure of powers & time norms for officers of Lok Sabha Secretariat as per Section 4(1)(b)(ii) - CIC: the application was without the requisite RTI fee & hence cannot be treated as an RTI application     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant wanted a copy of the report submitted by the Inspector of the RPF claiming that a serious allegation of terrorism has been levelled against him - CIC: inform about the conclusions arrived at in the report pertaining specifically to the appellant     Right to Information Act 2005    Details of pension A/c No. 10498108593 belonging to appellant’s husband was denied it u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - Appellant: information is required to challenge the lower court’s decision regarding the maintenance case in the High Court - CIC: denial upheld     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: information has been provided yet appellant continues to file applications on the same issue; appellant warned to be careful in future otherwise his applications may be dismissed without hearing for being vexatious, repetitive & with motivated intent     Right to Information Act 2005    Madras High Court reviews its views - reasons not required for filing RTI application     Right to Information Act 2005    Whose portrait should be put up in the government buildings?     Right to Information Act 2005    97 inmates of the overcrowded Tihar jail are HIV positive     Right to Information Act 2005    Madras HC makes a distinction between the ‘right to information’ & the ‘right to seek information’     Right to Information Act 2005    DAE clarification on the report regarding cancer deaths in Atomic Energy Hubs     Right to Information Act 2005    CPIL refuses to disclose the name of the source of CBI Director’s residence diary     Right to Information Act 2005    Should the reason for filing the RTI application be disclosed by the RTI applicant?     Right to Information Act 2005    Should the source of visitor’s diary at the residence of CBI Director be divulged?     Right to Information Act 2005    Evaluation of attendance and work performance of the MPs     Right to Information Act 2005   


Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.