Datasets:
jatinmehra
/
RTI-CASE-DATASET

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
instruction
stringlengths
233
20.3k
response
stringlengths
35
30.9k
File notings relating to sanction of prosecution to be disclosed after completion of process Background: The appellant sought a variety of information concerning both the sanction of prosecution in respect of IAS/IPS/IFS officers and about the implementation of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred parts of his request to the respective PIOs and replied to the appellant about the cases pending for sanction of prosecution of IAS officers. The PIO refused to disclose the copies of the file noting as being exempt under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission held that once the prosecution is over and the competent court has passed its orders, the copies of the file noting relating to the sanction of persecution should be disclosed without any fear of such information impeding the prosecution of the offender. Invoking the provisions of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;can be justified only if there is anything on record to believe that the disclosure of the information would result in the identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence or would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. As the respondents could not bring any on record which could justify such apprehension, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the relevant file noting in which the prosecution is now over to the appellant. The Commission observed that the PIO may withhold the names of individuals, if mentioned in the file noting, who might have provided any information in confidence.
Can the investigation report be disclosed to the initial complainant? Background: The applicant had filed a complaint with the CVC against an employee of railways. He later filed the RTI application seeking information related to his complaint like, name of the investigating agency; date of the commencement of investigation; copy of final report etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished partial information and transferred the application to the PIO, Railway Board for rest of the information. The appellant did not receive any information regarding the investigation report. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied for the disclosure of the investigation report under section 8(1) (e) & 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act stating that the investigation report contains names of the investigating officers, name of the witnesses, their statement etc. which, if disclosed, may expose the life of the officers/persons, who contributed in the investigation process, to danger.
The appellant argued that the denial of the FAA for the disclosure of investigation report to him was incorrect since it was his complaint on the basis of which the public authority had conducted the said investigation and prepared a report. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the copies of investigation report and other relied upon documents,except for copies of the statements of witnesses, after severing from it, under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act, the names of the Investigation officer and the names of witnesses which attract the exemption under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act.
Disclosure of reasons for referring a matter to the full bench of CIC under RTI Background: The appellant wanted the certified copies of the recommendation made by the Central Information Commissioner Shri ML Sharma in a particular case file while referring the matter to a full bench. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the CPIO in order to ascertain as to whether the disclosure of the information had been barred by the Commission. The PIO held that in terms of the Central Information Commission (CIC) decision dated 18 September 2007 in the appeal number CIC/AT/A/2006/00586, the internal noting /correspondence of tribunals were protected from disclosure.
The appellant argued that he had every right to know about the basis for referring this matter to a full bench and the recommendation of the CIC including the file notings could not be classified under any of the exemption provisions. The Commission held that all orders including noting made by the presiding Information Commissioner in any case file are part and parcel of the case and are in the nature of quasi judicial records to which the citizens have a right to get the certified copies by following the laid down procedure. The Commissionn ruled that when the CIC decides to refer a matter to a larger bench, the copy of the decision if recorded in a file noting, cannot be denied to a citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is clearly information within the meaning of Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.  Therefore, the Commission directed the PIO to provide this information to the appellant.
Information regarding the written off accounts of the bank under RTI Background: The appellant wanted the details of the written off accounts of the bank since 2007 to June 2010, the name of the borrower, the nature of the loan, the amount written off and the relevant resolutions of the Board of Directors etc. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information stating that it was of commercial confidence of third party customers of the bank and exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;and (e) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that the bank had a practice of collecting the total amount of loan written off every year all over the bank but does not maintain the details in the form as sought by the appellant, namely, the name of the borrower, the nature of the loan, the amount written off and the relevant resolutions of the Board of Directors and such information would have to be collected from some 5000 branches of the bank and 65 Circle Offices.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot be compelled to collect and compile the information as required by the appellant.
RTI Application seeking records of investigation against a company Background: The appellant sought information regarding an investigation taken up by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against a company, such as the indexes of records of investigation, records of approval sought for investigation, copy of intimation to SFIO to withdraw investigation, letter issued to ICICI bank, HDFC bank and other banks etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused for the information under section 8(1) (g) & (h) of the RTI Act, stating that the investigation proceedings were initially stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, due to certain technical infirmities in the order of Government. However, the Hon’ble Court ordered that once technical infirmities are rectified by the Government, the investigation may proceed.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that though the matter is currently not under investigation but it has also not been formally closed by the order of the Ministry which is the competent authority to do so, hence the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of RTI Act.
Can the information be denied under section 8(1)(h) after the charge-sheet has been filed? Background: The appellant was an employee of the Navy and claimed that he has wrongly held by the police under the Official Secrets Act.  To prove his innocence before the court he filed the RTI application seeking information regarding the FIR against him such as the details of the private cars hired by the raiding party, duty hours of the private cars, the payment made for hire of these cars and copy of receipt for payment etc. He also wanted to know the details of the persons who accompanied the Investigation officer for the raid along with their rank, number and the time the raiding party left the office etc. as per DD entry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act and stated that the case was pending in the CMM Court. The respondent during the hearing submitted that the appellant was arrested on the report of the Intelligence Branch which is an organization exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act in terms of section 24 read with the schedule II.
The Central Information Commission partially upheld the order and directed the PIO to provide copies of the relevant D.D. entries as requested by the appellant, the constitution of the raiding party and date of journey to Mumbai, stating that the disclosure of such information does not attract the provision of section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.
Disclosure of information related to issuance of currency coins by RBI Background: The appellant sought various details of the currency coins issued by the RBI to one of the SBI branch from year 2005 till date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant and denied the rest claiming exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;of the RTI Act, 2005.
The respondents submitted that the currencies in the change form are issued to the Individuals and as such no records are maintained by the particular branch of the Public Authority as there are nearly 1200 branches in the city. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the total value/ consolidated amount of the coins disbursed to the particular branch of SBI since the year 2005. Further, the Commission accepted that information pertaining to correspondence between RBI and SBI cannot be provided as it is maintained in the fiduciary capacity by the Public Authority.
Residential property details of Commissioner DDA sought under RTI Background: The appellant sought the information related with the allotment of residential property to the Housing Commissioner (DDA) under the lucky draw system. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide details under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming it to be a personal information of the third party.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) found that the sought information pertains to ‘third party’ and attracts exemption provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the personal information of the third party can be disclosed only if larger public interest is involved but the appellant was not able to establish any larger public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Using RTI to obtain information related to domestic violence case Background: On a matter regarding complaint of domestic violence pending with the Crime against Women Cell, the appellant sought for the various details viz. hearings conducted since the filing of the complaint, the number of hearings attended by the accused, details of the proceedings of each hearing, name of department of the Delhi Police in which one of the accused is employed, rules laid down by the Delhi Police for employees accused under some complaint proceedings and the action taken report on the FIR filed by the complainant etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused for the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act stating that the matter was pending and the investigation was in progress.
The respondent submitted that the copy of complaint, attendance sheet and day to day progress report was provided to the appellant after the first appeal and regarding the FIR details, the appellant has been informed that the investigation was pending. The Central Information Commission observed that the appellant had sought vague information regarding the rules laid down by the Delhi Police for employees accused under some complaint proceedings. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the rest of the details.
Award of compensation under RTI due to mindless transfer of the application Background: The appellant had made a representation against the Vice Chancellor of the BHU. He later filed an RTI application to the PMO seeking information about what action was taken on his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO transferred the application to the Department of Higher Education in Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) who later informed the appellant to approach the BHU to obtain the information. The appellant alleged that his RTI application was dealt with in an extremely casual manner due to which he was forced to go through the entire appellate process and nearly one year after he filed his original RTI application, he has yet to get the exact information he wanted.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that due to improper dealing of the application the appellant has suffered a lot of detriment and loss. Exercising the powers under section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD to pay to the appellant a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the PIO of MHRD to explain why the information was not given on time and the appellant was wrongly directed to approach the BHU for getting the information.
Can a Director obtain information about his company account from the bank using RTI? Background: The appellant claimed that the Registrar of Companies had declared him as a director of a company but the bank had stated in one of its communications that he was not a director. In this regard, the appellant filed the RTI application seeking a copy of the form number 32 furnished by the company to find out whether his name appeared on that form or not. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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;and (e) of the RTI Act stating that it was a third party information and involved commercial confidence.
The Central Information Commission observed that the information sought clearly relates to the account of a third party customer of the bank and unless the appellant has any connection to that account, in normal course, no information about the account can be disclosed to him. The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information only if the appellant furnishes any document/ authorisation from the competent authority showing him as a director of the said company.
Can an employee be promoted during any pending enquiry against him? Background: The appellant wanted to know that whether an officer of the bank can be promoted to Scale 1 to Scale VI if any case lies pending against him in any court of law under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code or if there was any departmental/vigilance enquiry pending against him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information observing that what was sought was not information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed a complaint to the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the PIO which directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the matter and ensure the disclosure of the information. However, the FAA also did not provide any information and merely endorsed the response of the PIO, forcing the appellant to file the second appeal.
The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the sought information stating that the PIO should have forwarded the relevant paragraphs/ pages from the departmental promotion rules relating to any such bar. In case there was no such bar, the PIO should have intimated the same. Instead of doing any such thing, the PIO chose the easy alternative of simply refusing the information by claiming that it did not amount to information in the first place. The Commission pointed that this tendency is not in conformity with the spirit of the RTI Act and must be shunned. Comments There is a thin line demarcating ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act from seeking interpretation. As far as possible, a PIO should avoid too legalistic interpretation of an application received under RTI and act in the spirit of the RTI Act.
Disclosure of pension details of corporators by MCD under RTI Background: The appellant sought various information related with the norms for a building along with the details regarding the amount of the pension allotted to each corporators like the number of the pensions, names of the beneficiaries, addresses etc. The Public information Officer (PIO) supplied the partial information and suggested the appellant to co-ordinate with the concerned officers for other details. Information related to the pension details was denied claiming that it could not be obtained from the concerned office.
The Central Information Commission observed that the information regarding pension details should have been provided suo-moto by MCD as per the provisions of section 4(1) (b) (xvii) and Section 4(1) (b) (xiii) of the RTI Act. There can be no justification for not providing this information. Using its power under Section 19(8) (a) (iii) and 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the PIO to display the information on the website of the MCD and send a consolidated report of compliance of the above directions to the Commission.
Can the information related to post mortem report be disclosed under RTI? Background: The appellant sought for the Medico legal report (M.L.R), post mortem and death summary report of a patient. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for the documents as patient’s related information is personal andconfidential in nature and stated that information related to the patients comes under fiduciary capacity with the hospital and is exempt under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission rejected the appeal observing that the traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice. In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since a patient of a doctor or hospital come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the doctor/hospital for their own benefit. Patients also have a choice of which doctor/hospital they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.
RTI application seeking service details of ex- employee Background: The appellant sought for the service details of one of the retired bank employee like terminal benefits, tax deduction, disciplinary action, causes for medical leave etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the same under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act claiming it to be the personal information of the employee.
The Central Information Commission directed the PIO to disclose all the information except the causes for medical leave observing that section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.The Commission observed that various Public Authorities routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens in performing their functions and when a citizen provides any information in discharge of a statutory obligation, it is clearly a public activity and disclosure of the same cannot be an intrusion on privacy. The Commission further stated that PIOs should test refusal under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.with the proviso which states that, “provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State legislature shall not be denied to any person”. PIO should realise that most of the information in this case would have to be given to the appellant and cannot be denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.. Comments The conflicting decisions of the various benches of the Commission in respect of cases relating to personal information is a pointer to the need of a personal privacy law.
Specific information should be sought in the RTI Application Background: The appellant sought the details of journalist (Editors /Correspondents /Photographers / Cameramen) accompanying various dignitaries like the Prime Minister, Vice president, External Affairs Ministers and External Affairs Secretaries on their foreign visits, from 1947 onwards. He also sought information about the policy and procedure adopted for selection of media persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied partial information and refused the rest stating that it requires compilation which will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act, 2005, and that the compilation of information is beyond the purview of RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that no such collation is available anywhere and the citizens should act responsibly when filing RTI requests.
Should the application fee be deposited for each item of the query separately? Background: The appellant sought information regarding the Prime Minister of India such as his personal details and the donations made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave the partial information and refused for other information as the appellant had not deposited application fee separately for each item of his queries. Further the PIO claimed that many of the queries were related to the Prime Minister's personal qualification which were not held in the PMO and thus cannot be provided.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought should not be denied merely because the RTI application contains more than one item of request.  Holding that there may be some information available in the PMO out of the queries made by the appellant, the Commission directed the PIO to identify those queries against which some or all information would be available and provide the same to the appellant.
Disclosure of the bank accounts details of the deceased parents under RTI Background: The appellant was one of the legal heirs of his deceased parents and alleged that the bank had been favoring other heirs by transferring the outstanding amounts to their accounts. In this regard he sought information regarding the bank account of his deceased parents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) supplied some of the information. The respondent submitted that all the available information had been provided. The rest of the information was denied because it was related to the accounts of the applicant’s brother and sister-in-law.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the matter was that of some dispute among the legal heirs over the ownership of the property and bank accounts of the deceased parents. The appellant being a legal heir has every right to know about the complete details of the accounts held in the name of his deceased parents. The Commission directed the PIO to invite the appellant and show him every single detail available about all the documents relating to the accounts of his deceased parents including the statement of accounts and records.