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

..

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

How to file a RTI application

Appellant sought information regarding the date on which a postal order has been encashed by Jhansi Development Authority - PIO: Information is not available - CIC: Reply does not contain any reference to the record retention policy; Provide revised reply

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

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

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Print

RTI application seeking information about the Supreme Court collegium

22 Aug, 2012

Background

The appellant wanted to know if the collegium of the Supreme Court of India was considering the candidature of a particular district judge of Andhra Pradesh for appointment as a judge of the High Court and all related information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that such information could not be disclosed not only because it was exempt in terms of the provisions of subsection 1(e) and (j) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, but also because the Supreme Court had stayed an order passed by the Central Information Commission for disclosure of such information.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information sought in this case is exactly similar to the one in which the Supreme Court has granted a stay. The CIC ruled that the desired information cannot be disclosed.

Citation: Mr. Khanapuram Suresh v. Supreme Court of India in File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001565

RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/590
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.