Legal Reference Library

Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in S.Robinson Vs 1.Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has held that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 cannot be invoked at the first instance, if an effective alternative remedy is available to obtain such information. “Although the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has elaborately made his submission and taken this Court through the Scheme of RTI Act, particularly, Sections 4, 8 and 22 of the RTI Act, I am unable to persuade myself that RTI Act can be invoked for all purposes regardless of the fact that there is existence of alternative effective mechanism provided under the respective departments for seeking information. If such recourse is encouraged and entertained it will destroy the very frame work of the respective mechanism which provides for furnishing information under the respective department,” Justice V. Parthiban observed. The Court was hearing a Petition filed by Mr. S. Robinson, challenging an order...

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...

In Kanchan Alok v. CPIO, National Insurance Company Limited, the Commission observed that Issues raised in RTI application related to rules/guidelines primarily relating to transfer related papers to insurer post sanction of claim in vehicle theft case which ought to be suo motu disclosed as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005. Though Respondent submitted that all such information has been disseminated, it is essential that vital and critical information pertaining to rules for insurance claims should be widely disseminated and displayed on the website for the benefit of all concerned.

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...

The Supreme Court has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to “scrupulously” follow its 2011 judgment which had ruled that students have fundamental and legal right of having access to answer sheets under Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court was hearing an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, filed by two law students, Mr. Kumar Shanu and Mr. Paras Jain, demanding that contempt proceedings be initiated against CBSE Chairman, Mr. YSK Seshu Kumar for “wilfully and deliberately disobeying” Court directions. “That it is ironical and astonishing that Respondent/Contemnor, being an Educational Institution responsible for educating a large section of the society, is blatantly flouting the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court,” the petition stated. The petitioners had brought to the Court’s notice information obtained under the RTI Act, whereby they were informed that the Board charges Rs. 700 per subject from students for providing a copy of their ...

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 ...

A division Bench of Delhi High Court Today held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies is a ‘Public Authority’ and hence duty bound to comply with the provisions of RTI Act and is required to provide information as provided for under Section 2(f) of the Act subject to the limitations enumerated under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Bench comprising of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma reversed a decision of Central information Commission in which it is held that the Cooperative Societies Act being a special Act took precedence over the RTI Act (which is a general Act) especially when the special Act itself provided to a bona-fide member of a Cooperative Society identical relief as provided under the RTI Act’. Facts; The petitioner has been a member of the Sangha Mitra CGH Society since 1995. She had sought information from the SPIO regarding documents and accounts pertaining to the Society as well as minutes of the general body meeting of the Society. She had also sought inform...

In Muhammed Siyad P.A. & Ors. v. Sreejith Appu & Ors [W.A No:1135/2015 &other connected cases] the petitioners based on the position of their rank, claimed before the single bench,that they are eligible for consideration towards appointment to various posts of Assistant Executive Engineers existing in the Kerala State Electricity Board(K.S.E.B).The petitioners taking rescue under an information obtained under the R.T.I application, contended that various vacancies (Unfilled/anticipated) existed in the K.S.E.B, so as to substantiate their claim towards appointment.Hence they interalia pleaded for a direction to the respondent K.S.E.B , to notify these vacancies before the Public Service Commission [P.S.C] and to further advise candidates from the rank list to these claimed vacancies as expeditiously as possible, highlighting the expiry of rank list on 15/12/13. Petitioners made a further plea, by placing support on the information received under R.T.I application to harbor t...

The Supreme Court today upheld a decision of the Kerala High Court which had held that the Public Service Commissions (PSC) are within the purview of the RTI Act and are bound to provide scanned copies of answer sheets of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices MY Eqbal and Arun Mishra. The Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered on March 9, 2011, had held that the RTI Act will apply to State Information Commissions. In the process, the High Court had turned down the contention that the concept of “information” for the purpose of the RTI Act  has to be restricted to such information falling within the ambit of fundamental right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a). The High Court had consequently, directed the PSC to provide answer sheets and details of inter...

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, ...

The Bombay High Court has ruled that information regarding development plans of a building company can be disclosed by the municipal authorities on an application under the Right to Information Act. In this case, Ferani Hotels Ltd and Nusli Wadia, the two parties had an agreement to develop certain lands in Mumbai. The relationship turned sour and the agreement was terminated, leading to a suit in the high court. Meanwhile, Wadia moved an application before the public information officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking details of the architectural plans and reports submitted by the company to the municipal commissioner and his approval. When the information was denied, Wadia moved the state information commissioner, who ordered the release of the information. The company appealed to the high court, arguing that the information sought did not serve any social or public interest, it was only for private interest. Moreover, it would harm its business interest and wo...