Table of Contents
Right to Information
Right to information is declared as a fundamental right crafted in the article 19(1)(a)
Law enforce: Right to Information Act, 2005.
Bombay High Court, PIL No. 20 of 2012
No ID. proof is required to file an RTI Application
No ID proof is ever required to file an Application under the RTI act,2005
As per section 6(2) of the RTI Act,2005
Case Laws ;
Writ Petition No.2678 of 2020, Bombay HC.
Vishwas Bhamburkar Vs PIO, HUDCO., CIC/HUDCO/A/2017/195197
Review of the Order passed by the RTI authorities
01. The provision of review is available against the order of the Public Information office as per the provision of the section 7(3)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005
Case Laws ;
- It is a settle provision of law the anything is allowed if the same is not specifically prohibited in law.
- Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial … on 12 December, 1980
It is possible to seek reviews of the decisions.
Guidelines issued to the RTI Authorities
01. The comply with the provision of RTI Act, 2005 difference guidelines have been issued by the different competent authorties and courts of law.
Guidelines to the appellate authorities by State of Odisha.
Guidelines issued by the Central Government
Guidelines issued to the Higher Rank Officer of a public officer
Guidelines issued by the State of Rajasthan as to registration of FIR
Guidelines of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Jail Vs UOI, 2021
Guidelines for the audio video mode of hearing.
Guidelines to comply with the provision of Section 4 of the RTI act, 2005
Guidelines for section 6 of RTI act,2005
Guidelines for section 6(1) of RTI act,2005
Guidelines for section 6(3) of RTI act,2005
Guidelines for section 7 of the RTI act,2005
Guidelines to ICs : Cannot turn blind eye to the culpable delay. must impose penalty u/s 20.
Guidelines for section 26.
Applicant can seek help of others in a proceeding.
Applicant has right to be heard.
Only quoting the section of exception is not enough.
ADJOURNMENT
Appointment of Transparency Officer
01. The provision is made for the appointment of the Transparency officer in all public officer for the proper compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Penalty on the PIO u/s 20 of the statute
01. The provision is made in the RTI Act, 2005 to provide the teeth to the Information Commissioners to impose penalty on the erring officer in decide of any complaint or appeal under the statute.
-
For causing delay in providing information.
-
Refused to received RTI application.
-
For not providing information.
-
For providing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.
-
For Destroying Information.
Information Commission Can’t Turn Blind Eye To Culpable Delay In Furnishing Info By PIO Case Law : Writ Petition No.4913 of 2022, Karnataka High Court.
Show the exit doors to the erring PIO
It is a settled rule of law the there is no place in the government job for those who has lost their integrity and not doing their job diligently.
Case Law : Writ Petition No.17677 of 2010, Madras High Court.
Exception from Disclosure of Information
- 01. Section 8 of the RTI act 2005 provides for the same
- 02. Section 9 provides in case of Copy Rights Infringement.
- 03. Section 10 provides for the Severability
- 04. Section 11 provides for the Third Party or private information.
Information being bulky should not be a ground to deny information. Delhi high Court.
information cannot be denied to a person persuing court case., Karnataka High Court
Charge-sheet or police report can be sought through RTI
Information must be provided in case of Corruption & Human right violation. S-24,Orissa HC
Priviledged Document is not a ground to deny information.
Government cannot classify a document as secret and then claim an exception.
Information cannot be denied by taking ground that the same is available in the website.
Larger Public Interest
as defined in section 8 of the RTI act 2005
The words “larger public interest” would,
in our view, have an impact on a broad section of the society and not
individual interests or conflicts. It cannot be defined in a straight jacket
formula and has to be interpreted on a case to case basis. Suffice it to say
that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate, in the facts of the case,
as to what that “larger public interest” would be.
Ravi Prakash Soni Vs CIC, LPA 523/2024 & C.M.Nos.36329-36331/2024 <br> Delhi High Court, 2024, July,18, 2024
The Most Miused Judgement of the Supreme Court by the PIOs
CBSE Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, SC
In Para-37 the Apex Court Opined that The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public
authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal
and regular duties.
The above mentioned statement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court should not be considered as the Ratio Decidendi but the Obiter Dicta as nothing is directed to any authority to comply with the directions given in the judgment as to Para-37.
Whatever the Hon’ble Supreme court has said is there in the statute of RTI act, 2005, nothing new has been said.
It is only the opinion of the Supreme Court.
But the Corrupt PIOs are misusing it to reject the RTI applications mechanically and some places the section officers are entrusted to reject the RTI application taking the false ground of this case.