PowerPoint Presentation

The Right to Information Act

Rajnish KumarProfessor IT, N.A.I.R.YOUR DOUBTS

Some issuesSpirit of Right to Information LawEvery Public Authority to:Provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication including Internet so that Public have Minimum Resort to the Use of RTI Act to obtain Information Sec 4(2)

For the purpose of Sub-Section 4(1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public - Sec 4(3) 4Huge amount of informationIMPORTANT JUDGEMENTIn the case of Sh. Hitesh Kumar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Decision No. 570/ICPB/2007 F.No. PBA/06/562 dtd 15th June 2007)The appellant sought for copies of documents & various other details in 62 serials covering the entire gamut of functioning of the insurance company.

The respondent while furnishing a copy of the annual report expressed their inability to collect the other information sought for as being voluminous, and is beyond the available fiscal and human resources of the organization. He also advised the appellant to visit their website where relevant information was available.

Huge amount of informationIMPORTANT JUDGEMENTJudgment: Commission was in full agreement with the decision of CPIO and the AA. The appellant is at liberty to ask for specific information which would not cause enormous time and efforts to collect and furnish.Similar case:S.K. Lal vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00268-272, dt: 29.12.2006) The applicant had filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for all the records regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. CIC its a mockery of the ACT

Third Party InformationIf an applicant seeks any information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and that third party has treated that information as confidential, the Central Public Information Officer should consider whether the information should be disclosed or not. PUBLIC INTEREST SERVED OR NOT.If the CPIO intends to disclose the information, he should within five days from the receipt of the application, give a written notice to the third party that the information has been sought by the applicant under the RTI Act and that he intends to disclose the information.

http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/8_2_2010-IR.pdfhttp://rti.india.gov.in/manual2.php?pageid=6

Third Party Information.He should request the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed. The third party should be given a time of ten days, from the proposed disclosure, if any.The Central Public Information Officer should make a decision regarding disclosure of information keeping in view the submission of the third party. Such a decision should be taken within forty days decision, the CPIO should give a notice of his decision to the third party in writing. The Notice give to the third party should include a statement that the third party is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

Third Party InformationThe third party can prefer an appeal to the First Appellate Authority against the decision made by the Central Public Information Officer within thirty days from the date of the receipt of notice. If not satisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the third party can prefer the second appeal to the Central Information Commission.If an appeal has been filed by the third party against the decision of the CPIO to disclose the third party information, the information should not be disclosed till appeal is decided.

Privacy and Third PartyAs upheld inMadhulika Rastogi vs Regional Passport Office, New Delhi,on 4 February 2009,M. Rajamannar vs PIO, AC Division, Indira Gandhi National Open Universityon 18 February 2009 andA.V.Subrahmanyam vs BSNL, Hyderabadon 16 February 2009 The judgments illustrate that information submitted to public authorities at any point in time whether to get admitted to school, to get a license, to pass a public services examination or even file a divorce; all qualify for access to other people because they have been knowingly submitted to the public domain. Personal informationHC Ruling : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Personal-information-cant-be-disclosed-under-RTI-HC/articleshow/22473980.cmsJustice Vasanti Naik quashed and set aside an order of the state information commissioner, Nashik, directing an information officer to supply personal information, including service record and income tax returns of Subhash Khemnar, the joint director (Pune) in the department of agriculture, to one Dilip Thorat.Still a very grey area.

Personal information

3rd Party does not have Veto

Section-11 is only procedural section which requires the PIO to inform the third party if he intents giving information which relates to or has been supplied by the third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party.

It must be understood that denial of information under RTI Act can only be based on the exemption under Section 8(1) and no third party is given a veto over disclosing information.

Record not Available

Shri V. M. Sharma v. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00367-368, dtd 5.2.2007)Bench: Dr. O. P. Kejariwal

Weeded out record: The Commission noted that the records sought, as informed by the respondent, had been weeded out as per the rules the Applicant to take up the issue with the department concerned in case he noticed that any record which did not fall under the weeding out rules had also been destroyed.

RecordsShri Jagdish Ahuja, Delhi v. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00137 dtd. 9.8.2006)Bench: Dr. O. P. Kejriwal

Poor Records: Details regarding those unaided schools which were being run on private land in Delhi sought little authentic information available and that is scattered in various files

The Commission held that proper record management is an inherent part of the Right to Information, and so it was important for the CBSE to have its firm database on computer. The Commission directed CBSE to make their record management more systematic and supply the requested information.RecordsRecords ManagementThis is now very importantProcedures to be adopted uniformlyThe Act enjoins upon the public authorities to strengthen their records management systems and use of the latest technology for this purpose in a cost effective manner.In the case of Sh. Saidur Rehman Vs CIC (Appeal No sCIC/AA/A/2006/00032&00034 dt. 22 June, 2007.). The appellant put the following questions to CIC:-

(I) As to who is responsible for delay in dispatch of a letter from the office of the Commission.

(ii) As to why paragraphs 2 & 3 of the rejoinder submitted by him in his appeal petition were not taken into account while deciding the matter.

Judgment: In this case the CIC has given a crucial decision that the RTI is not about seeking answers or asking questions. [Section 2 (j)]RTI is not about seeking answers and asking questionsShri Prithviraj Rawat v. North Western Railway (No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01313, dated 17.3.2008) Bench: Dr. O. P. Kejariwal

Transfer in Public Interest: The Appellant sought information regarding his transfer the Respondents maintained that they had shown all the concerned filed and documents the transfer orders were issued in public interest and the Appellant wanted to know what public interest was involved in his transfer since there was no noting to this effect on the file.

Commission accepted the stand of the Respondents who stated that u/s 2(f) this information sought by the Appellant did not come under the definition of information.What is not informationMotive of person in seeking the information is not to be explored Sec (6.2) In the case of Sh. A.S. Lall Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Police & Appellate Authority (F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00075 dt. 2nd June 2006)

The applicant sought among other thing copies of license for certain reference and also the dates of inspection carried out by the Delhi Police.

The respondents went into the motive for asking these information for deciding about the response. This issue was examined by the Commission and have clearly rejected the procedure of exploring motives.

Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly provided (Section 8(1) of the RTI Act) In the case of Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision No. CIC / OK / A/ 00163, dated 7.7.2006), the applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a student in the University hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him. The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the University .Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly provided (Section 8(1) of the RTI Act) Judgement: The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial of legitimate information. The Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act. Ms. Anju Musafir v. Ministry of External Affairs(No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00177 dtd. 26.3.2007Bench: Dr. O. P. Kejariwal

Visa Section 8(1)(a): The reasons for non-issuance of visa to a French national who wanted to come to teach at the Mahatma Gandhi International School in Ahmedabad demanded The respondents took refuge u/s 8(1)(a) and stated that it was an established international practice that when a Visa was refused, no reasons were to be given to the applicant The Commission accepted this submission.

Exemption from disclosureExemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI ActExemption from disclosure of information There shall be no obligation to give any citizen-

information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.

s.8 (1)(a)

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.

(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.Exemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI Act(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such informationExemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI Act(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government. (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. Exemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI Act(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Exemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI Act(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. But the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over.

Exemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI Act(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Exemption from DisclosureSection 8, RTI ActThe information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Exempted OrganizationsThe List of 22 exempted organizations is given belowIntelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home AffairsDirectorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of FinanceCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of FinanceDirectorate of Enforcement, Ministry of FinanceNarcotics Control BureauAviation Research CentreSpecial Frontier ForceBorder Security Force, Ministry of Home AffairsCentral Reserve Police Force, Ministry of Home AffairsIndo-Tibetan Border Police, Ministry of Home AffairsCentral Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home AffairsNational Security Guard, Ministry of Home AffairsResearch & Analysis Wing of The Cabinet SecretariatAssam Rifles, Ministry of Home AffairsSashastra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home AffairsSpecial Protection GroupDefence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of DefenceBorder Road Development OrganisationFinancial Intelligence Unit, IndiaDirectorate General Income Tax (Investigation)National Technical Research OrganisationNational Security Council Secretariathttp://rti.india.gov.in/exempted.php

Latest Developments- Service BookCentral Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit in May 2013,directed the railways to supply a copy of the service book of a ticket examiner (TE) to RTI activist Chetan Kothari, saying it was information that needed to be placed in the public domain.The CIC held that a public authority was obligated under section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act to disclose information related to the service of its employees and directed the railways to make available the TE's service book to Kothari.

Some Developmentshttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/rajkot/RTI-activist-gets-compensation-for-delay-in-information/articleshow/28025738.cms28-12-13RAJKOT: Taking Kodinar Taluka Development Officer (TDO) to task for delaying information sought under Right to Information (RTI),Gujarat Information Commission(GIC) has asked him to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to the applicant Deepak Mori from theTaluka Panchayat funds. A fine of Rs 15,000 has also been imposed on TDO S B Devdhar.

Section 19(8)(b) in The Right To Information Act, 2005require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

Some Useful Siteswww.rtigateway.org.inhttp://rti.india.gov.in/http://righttoinformation.org/index.htmlhttp://cic.gov.in/http://righttoinformation.gov.in/webactrti.htm

Book:Right to Information- Law and PracticeDr RK VermaTAXMANN