Legal Reference Library

Central Information Commission Kalyan Kumar Ganguly v. PIO, ESIC, Kolkata MANU/CI/0314/2017 11.05.2017 Right to Information Information relating to wages of employees has to be voluntarily disclosed by public authority Appellant sought information regarding M/s. Laxmi Distribution. Specifically, he sought relationship between one Mr. H.B. Singhvi and M/s. Laxmi Distribution; return of contribution filed for relevant period and whether it was certified by chartered accountants or not; total number of employees working in said establishment etc. through eight points. CPIO denied on grounds that, information sought was relating to third party. Being dissatisfied by Order given by FAA who upheld decision of CPIO, Appellant approached this Commission. Appellant submitted that, PF amount was deducted for period 1986 to 1988 but it was not deposited, and no benefits were given from 1986 to 2016. PF account is not like any other individual private bank account where all his perso...

The Central Information Commission, in the case of Balendra Kumar vs Ministry of Labour and Employment, held that when information is being sought by the applicant, non-traceability of the file cannot be used as an excuse to deny the information sought. The complainant had sought details regarding certain specified files; however, the same was denied to him by the CIPO, on account of the file being missing. It was the claim of the respondent authorities that the file could not be traced despite their best efforts.

High Court of Delhi B.B. Dash v. Central Information Commission and Anr. Right to Information CPIO is to give sufficient reasons for denying supply of information on account of it being exempt Petitioner impugns order dated 22th November, 2016, whereby, CIC has held Petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing information to Respondents. It has been held that, Petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons. Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on Petitioner. In facts of present case, Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 25th August, 2015 seeking certain information. Reply to said information was given. Since Respondent No.2 was not satisfied with reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed with CIC. Said complaint under Section 18 of Act culminated in proceedings under Section 20 of Act leading to impugned order dated 22nd November, 2016. ...

The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the Central Information Commissioner and stated that while reversing orders of lower authorities, the CIC must record appropriate reasons for the decision. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the writ petition against CIC order dated 04.06.2015, and observed, ‘In the present case, there is no finding returned by the Central Information Commission that there is a larger public interest which justices the disclosure of the information, in fact, there is no reasoning or rationing accorded in the impugned order except to direct the petitioner to furnish the information.’ The petitioner had challenged CIC order that directed him to provide information sought by an RTI applicant. The provision of said information was declined by the CPIO and upheld by the first Appellate Authority as the same was exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of the Right to Information Act on the ground that being personal information, there is no public interest inv...

In a recent order, the Central Information Commission has ruled that subject to availability and convenience of the Minister at office in capital city or in his constituency, the ministers owe a moral and democratic responsibility to meet their voters or people in the constituency. The CIC ruled that Ministers in Union and State Governments are public authorities and recommended that the Centre and States provide necessary support to each Minister, which includes designation of some officers or their appointment as Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities. It also recommended that they be given an official website for suo motu disclosure of information. The appointment of a Public Information Officer has been directed to be made within two months. A CPIO for the office of Minister of Law has also been directed to be appointed. Lastly, it recommended that the ‘oath of office and affirmations’ administered to each Minister must be changed from being one of secrecy, to ...

Central Information Commission: CIC has observed that although Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women in the Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 specifically prohibits publication and communication of contents of the complaint made under Section 9, identity and addresses of the aggrieved women etc., to the public, press and media, however, it does not prohibit the disclosure of certified copy of complaint to the person against whom complaint is made. The case relates to a complaint containing allegations of sexual harassment, filed by PG students against two Professors of Delhi University. Earlier, nine students of Delhi University (Faculty of Medical Sciences) filed complaint against Head of their department and his wife who were their thesis guides, alleging sexual harassment. The appellant wife sought information related to the complaint from the University but was denied on the ground that disclosure of such information would be inappropriate, as it would...

In two rare verdicts, Central Information Commission has awarded compensation to applicants fighting for information on their provident fund and salary. A senior citizen resident of Dhanbad, who had been seeking information from his employer Bharat Coking Coal Limited on deduction from his salary towards provident fund for two years, has been awarded a compensation of Rs 15,000. Another resident of Brahmpuri, who was employed as a teacher on contract by East Delhi Municipal Corporation, has been awarded a compensation of Rs 8,000 for being wrongfully denied information on his emoluments for three years. RTI applicant B K Mukhopadhyay, who was working as senior technical inspector in Bharat Coking Coal Limited, had sought information about provident fund deductions from his salary between 1986 and 1991 after he came to know that his contribution had not been properly deposited. However, the organization did not give him any information. While arguing his case before the Commission, ...