DISCUSSIONS   ON   THE   PROVISIONS   OF RIGHT  TO  INFORMATION  ACT,  2005

- By S.S. Upadhyay, HJS

       Addl. Director (Training)

       Institute of Judicial Training & Research, U.P.

       Lucknow

             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

1.         Object behind the enactment of RTI Act, 2005---- Mal-administration, mismanagement, corruption and delays are some of the melodies plaguing the public offices which a common person has to face in his daily life. With a view to curb corruption and mal-administration etc. in the public offices and to promote transparency and accountability amongst the public officers, the Parliament enacted a new legislation in the year 2005 namely, The Right To Information Act, 2005. Prior to the passage of the RTI Act, 2005 and because of the stringent provisions contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, it was almost impossible for a citizen to obtain any information regarding the official working and performance of a public officer holding a public office. The RTI Act, 2005 not only promotes transparency and accountability amongst the public servants regarding their performances in their public offices but also ensures that the concept of rule of law is not subverted and foiled. This new legislation has brought about the sense of devotion towards duty and tendency to adhere to the laws and norms amongst the public servants in discharge of their official duties as they have been made to realize under this Act that any willful breach of the laws, norms and the official duties on their part may invite punitive action against them under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. See---- Jitendra Singh vs. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2067 (All)

2.         Composition of various authorities under the RTI Act,     2005---- Various authorities constituted under the RTI Act, 2005 are as under----

(1)        Central Information Commission—Sec. 12 of the RTI Act, 2005 0provides for the constitution of a Central Information Commission to be headed by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC). Such Commission has already been constituted and made functional with its office in New Delhi, the capital of the country. Former union cabinet secretary Sri Wazahat Ullah is presently heading the Central Information Commission as its Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).

(2)        State Information Commission—Sec. 15 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for the Constitution of State Information Commission in every State with the Chief Information Commissioner (SIC) as its head. Such a State Information Commission has already been constituted and notified in the State of U.P. with its head office at Lucknow. There are several other Information Commissioners appointed and notified by the Govt. of U.P. to discharge their duties as per the provisions of  the RTI Act, 2005.

(3)        First Appel (Sec. 19 of the RTI Act, 2005)---- Generally, Head of Departments (HOD) of various public offices in U.P. have been notified as first appellate authorities u/s. 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 against the orders passed by the CPIOs. Limitation period for preferring an appeal is 30 days from the date of order of the CPIO or from the date of deemed rejection.

(4)        Second Appeal (Sec. 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005)---- A second appeal u/s. 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall lie to the CIC or SIC from the date when the decision should have been made. The limitation period is 90 days from the date of the decision of the first appellate authority.

(5)        Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) – Sec. 5(c) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3.         Rules and regulations to give effect to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005----- Various Rules and Regulations formulated by the Central Government, the Government of U.P. and the Allahabad High Court to carry out the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 are enumerated as under……..

(1)               The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.

(2)               Uttar Pradesh Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006.

(3)               U.P. State Information Commission (Procedure of Appeal) Rules, 2006

(4)               The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005.

(5)               Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.

(6)               Different G.Os. and Notifications issued by Govt. of U.P.

4.         Extent of right to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005--- Sec. 3 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, 2005, any citizen has got a right to have any information from any public office of the Central Government or the State Governments.  Sec. 8 & 9 provide for certain prohibitions with regard to the furnishing of certain information. Any person, subject to the bar contained U/s. 8 & 9 of the Act, 2005, may seek any information from any public office by moving an application in writing to the CPIO. Sec. 5 of the Act mandates every public authority to appoint a CPIO in his office to provide information to the applicants under the Act, 2005. Sec. 22 of the Act, 2005 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect over the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any other contrary law for the time being in force. This means that subject to the exemptions contained in Sec. 8 & 9 of the RTI Act, 2005, any contrary provisions contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or in any other general or special enactment will not come in the way of furnishing information to an applicant under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Extent of “information” as defined u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005---- The information required to be supplied by a public authority to a citizen on request are not confined to the information mentioned in Sec. 4. That Section only casts certain obligations on public authorities for maintaining records and publishing the particulars mentioned therein. That does not amount to laying down that only those information which the public authority are required to publish u/s. 4(b) alone need be supplied to the citizens on request. The information mentioned in Sec. 3 is not circumscribed by Sec. 4 at all. Obligations laid down u/s. 4 are to be compulsorily performed apart from the other liability on the part of the public authority to supply information available with them as defined under the Act subject of course to the exceptions laid down in the Act. The information detailed in Sec. 4 has to be compulsorily published by the public authority on its own without any request from anybody. Further, there is no indication anywhere in the Act to the effect that the ‘information’ as defined in Sec. 2(f) is confined to those mentioned in Sec. 4 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be held that only information mentioned in Sec. 4 need be supplied to citizens on request. See--- Canara Bank vs. The Central Information Commission, Delhi, 2007 (5) ALJ (NOC) 916 (Kerala)

            When the RTI Act, 2005 makes the same applicable to ‘public authorities’ as defined therein there is need to give a restricted meaning to the expression ‘public authorities’ strait-jacketing the same within the four corners of ‘State’ as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution, especially keeping in mind the object behind the Act. The definition of ‘public authority’ has a much wider meaning than that of ‘State” under Art. 12. Further, the definition of “State” under Article 12 is primarily in relation to enforcement of fundamental rights through Courts, whereas the Act is intended at achieving the object of providing an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognized under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. See--- M.P. Varghese vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, AIR 2007 Kerala 230

The scope of furnishing information under the Act is so wide that the Sec. 8 of the Act itself makes it clear that the information which cannot be denied to Parliament or to a state legislature, the same cannot be denied to any person as well.

5.         Information which cannot be furnished under the RTI Act, 2005 (Sec. 8 & 9)— The exemptions and prohibitions against furnishing information under the RTI Act, 2005 have been provided u/s. 8 & 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 which read as under--

“Sec. 8 -          Exemptions from disclosure of information- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a)                information, disclosure of which would prejudicialy 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;

(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;

(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 information;

(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;

(h)                information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i)                  cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;

Provided that 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:

Provided further that those matters, which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(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 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.

(2)        Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

(3)        subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.”

“S. 9 – Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases. – Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.”

5(A).    A private body, institution or organization etc. financed by govt. are covered within the definition of “public authority” u/s. 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act, 2005 ---- Whenever there is even an iota of nexus regarding control and finance of public authority over the activity of a private body or institution or an organization etc. the same would fall under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act. The provisions of the Act have to be read in consonance/and in harmony with its objects and reasons given in the Act which have to be given widest meaning in order to ensure that unscrupulous persons do not get benefits of concealment of their illegal activities or illegal acts by being exempted under the Act and are able to hide nothing from the public. The working of any such private body owned or under control of public authority shall be amenable to the Right to Information Act. The petitioner being an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act, 1929 and receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government is therefore, covered under the aforesaid Act. Even in cases where a private or a non-Government organization college received financial grant from the State Government or is regulated by the provisions of Act such as the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and payment of Salaries to Teachers and Other Staff Act, 1971 it would still be covered by the definition given in Sec. 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.      See----

1.                  Committee of Management, Azad Memorial Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Koloura vs. State of U.P., 2008 (5) ALJ 88 (All)

2.                  Dhara Singh Girls High School, Ghaziabad vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 Allahabad 92

3.                  Principal M.D.S.D. Girls College, Ambala vs. State Information Commissioner, Haryana, AIR 2008 P & H 101 (D.B.)

4.                  Committee of Managemnt, Shanti Niketan Inter College, Ghazipur vs. State of U.P., 2008 (3) AWC 3027(All)

5.                  M.P. Varghese vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, AIR 2007 Kerala 230

5(B)        Access to evaluated answer books permissible under the RTI Act--- Interpreting the provisions of Sec. 2(j), 6, 3, 8, 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 and Article 19 of the Constitution, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that an examinee has got a right of access to evaluated answer scripts and the consequences of making over of such information is immaterial. Such access to the evaluated answer scripts is not exempted u/s. 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Refusal to furnish answer sheet to examinee to keep examiner’s identity concealed so that examiner is not threatened is not proper. A ground founded on apprehended lawlessness may not justify natural operation of a statute. However, procedure may be evolved such that the identity of examiner is not apparent on face of evaluated answerscript. See--- Pritam Rooj vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 2008 Calcutta 118

5(C)       Disclosure of information regarding transfer, posting and promotion of staff of nationalized bank [Sec. 8(1)(e)]---- The information requested for by the employee of Nationalized Bank related to transfer and promotion of employees of the bank. Such information does not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the petitioner bank with anybody coming within the purview of Sec. 8(1)(e). The information relating to posting, transfer and promotion of clerical staff of a bank do not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the bank with its employees within the dictionary meaning of word ‘fiduciary’ such information cannot be said to be held in trust by the Bank on behalf of its employees and therefore cannot be exempted under this Sec. 8(1)(e). In fact, without knowing this information, one employee cannot know his rights vis-à-vis other employees. In this connection, it has to be noted that one of the information requested for its transfer guidelines pertaining to clerical staff. Any member of the staff of the bank is, as of right, entitled to know what are those guidelines, even apart from the Right to Information Act. Further, these informations have necessarily to be divulged if we are to have an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to the functioning of the bank and to contain corruption so as to hold the bank which is an instrumentality of the State, accountable to the people, which are the avowed objects of the act, as proclaimed in the preamble to the Act. Disclosure of information relating to transfer of employee of nationalized bank does not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of other employees and such an information cannot be withheld u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. See--Canara Bank vs. The Central Information Commission, 2007 (5) ALJ (NOC) 916 (Kerala)

5(D)       Information regarding the names of beneficiaries under the U.P. Chief Ministers Discretionary Fund Rules, 1999 is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005----- Information as to names of all persons having received more than Rs. 1 lakh from the U.P. Chief Minister’s Discretionary Fund is not exempted u/s. 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. An applicant is entitled to such information under the 2005 Act as such fund is part and parcel of the Consolidated Fund of the State of U.P. and it is public money. Public has right to know about it. See--- Public Information Officer, Chief Minister’s Office, Civil Secretariat, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow vs. State Information Commission, U.P., 2008 (4) AWC 3574 (All--LB) (D.B.)

5(E)       Disclosure of voluminous information---- (i) Where the disclosure of information regarding transfer, posting and promotion etc. of the employees was refused by the Canara Bank on the ground that the information sought for of the last five years was quite voluminous and required tremendous man power and time, it has been held by the Kerala High Court that the information sought for as noted above could not have been withheld as being exempted u/s. 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. See---- Canara Bank vs. The Central Information Commission, 2007 (5) ALJ (NOC) 916 (Kerala)

(ii)        Where the applicant had submitted her application for recruitment to the post of Clerk in the respondent bank but the application did not reach the bank within stipulated time and was therefore not considered by the bank and this fact was also communicated to the applicant by the bank and the communication was never challenged by the applicant, it has been held by Madras High Court that the applicant was not entitled to the details of recruitment of clerical posts under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.  See--- B. Bindhu vs. Secretary, Tamilnadu Circle Postal Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chennai, AIR 2007 Madras 13

5(F)       Adjudication of disputes or discrimination etc. not permissible under the RTI Act, 2005---- The RTI Act, 2005 does not provide for any adjudication or to give reasons as to why a particular person, is being discriminated in payment of his salary. On an application the District Information Officer was required to furnish the information, as it was available in his office. He is not supposed to give reasons for any action or inaction of the department in a matter in which the persons may be aggrieved. If the office of the District Inspector of Schools was not aware of the dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal filed by the State Government, it was not required to give justification for the same. The information as it is available in the office has to be furnished to the petitioner. There was no material to establish that the District Inspector of Schools was communicated with the Dismissal if misc. appeal filed by the State Government against the order of Civil Judge. The manner in which the application uses the information is not the concern of the authorities nominated under the Right to Information Act. See---- Jitendra Singh vs. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2067 (All)

6.         Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006---Rule 26 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 provides that the CPIO in the District Courts and in the High Court will not entertain any application from any person for providing any information relating to any case pending for adjudication before the High Court or the subordinate judiciary.

Note:   Under the Provisions of Rule 24 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, the Registrar General, in the matters of High Court and the District Judge of the District, in the matters of the District Judiciary, have been notified as Appellate authorities against the decisions made by the CPIOs.

7.         Procedure for obtaining information: (i) Application in writing in Hindi or English accompanied by the requisite fee will be presented by the applicant to the CPIO. (S. 6)

(ii)        Disclosure of reasons or purpose in the application for obtaining information is not required. [S. 6(2)]

(iii)       Where the applicant is incapable of reducing to writing his request for information, the CPIO is under obligation of law to assist him in reducing his request for information in the form of an application. [Proviso to S. 6(1)]

(iv)       In case the application is made to an authority not concerned with the information sought for, such authority will transfer such application to the authority concerned or department concerned for disposal of the same. [S. 6 (3)]

(v)        CPIO is bound to dispose of the application within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. [S. 7(1)]

(vi)       Rejection of the application by the CPIO requires reasoned order. [S. 7(1)]

(vii)      In case the information required relates to the life or liberty of a person, the same must be furnished within a period of 48 hours from the time of receipt of the request/application. [Proviso to S. 7(1)]

(viii)     Deemed rejection of the application - …….. in case the CPIO fails to grant or reject the application within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, it shall be presumed that the CPIO has refused to furnish the required information. [S. 7(2)]. Similar provision has been made by the Allahabad High Court under Rule-17 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.

8.         Fee for obtaining information: U.P. Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006 regulates the payment of fee required for furnishing information or copies of any documents.

Vide G.O. No. 993/43-2-2005 dated 19 October, 2005 of Administrative Reforms Section-2 of the Government of U.P., the fee structure for obtaining information or certified copies of any documents has been provided as under:-

NOTE: 1-     The fee prescribed as above shall be payable by the applicant in cash or through demand draft or banker’s cheque and a receipt for the same will be given to the applicant.

NOTE: 2-     Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006 provides that the fee payable by an applicant shall be paid in cash or through draft or pay order of Rs.500/- per application drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court or the District Judge of the District as the case may be.

9.         Reasons behind information or order not permissible under the RTI Act---- The expression “information” as defined u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 although means and includes material in any form including records, documents, memos,         e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by any public authority under any other law. But the definition cannot include within its fold answers to question “why”, which would amount to asking reasons for justification of a particular thing. Hence, in facts of the instant case, as the CPIO had not furnished any wrong information by stating not available and clarifying the same by stating ‘do not know’ in view of the nature of questions asked in seeking information. As such, the impugned order of the Goa Information Commissioner holding the CPIO guilty of furnishing incorrect, incomplete and misleading information to the applicant was found not sustainable and was set aside by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. See---- (Dr.) Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission through State Chief Information Commissioner, 2008(63) ACC (Bombay-Summary) 29

10.       Powers of information commissions u/s. 18 & 20 of the RTI Act, 2005----- While enquiring into a complaint u/s. 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission can issue necessary directions for supply or disclosure of information asked for if it is satisfied that information was wrongly withheld or not completely given or incorrect information was given which is otherwise liable to be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005. See---- Public Information Officer, Chief Minister’s Office, Civil Secretariat, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow vs. State Information Commission, U.P., 2008 (4) AWC 3574 (All--LB) (D.B.)

11.       PENALTY (S. 20)---- In case of refusal to receive the application or not disposing of the same within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of it’s receipt, the CPIO or the State Public Information Officer shall be liable to pay Rs. 250/- each day till the application is received or the information is furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed Rs. 25,000/-.

NOTE - 1:    The proviso to S. 20 makes it imperative that before imposing the above noted penalty upon the CPIO or SPIO, a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to them.

NOTE - 2:    In case of non-compliance of any orders/directions of the CIC or the SIC or furnishing any false or misleading or incomplete information, the CIC or the SIC may recommend for disciplinary action against the CPIO or the SPIO. [S. 20(2)]

12(A).  APPEAL:  S. 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for appeals. A person aggrieved by a decision of the CPIO or the SPIO under S. 7 of the Act may, within 30 days from the date of such decision, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has been empowered to condone the delay in preferring the appeal if the appellant is able to show sufficient reasons for not being able to prefer the appeal within 30 days from the date of the decision by the CPIO or the SPIO.

12(B).  The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 – The procedure laid down under these rules apply to the Appeals preferred to the CIC.

The procedure for preferring Appeals against the decisions of the CPIO or the SPIO has been clarified by the Govt. of U.P. vide its G.O. No. DOLNo-Bha.Sa.-43/43-2-05-15/2(2)/03TC-2 dated 27^th September, 2005 of Administrative Reforms Section – 2 which reads as under:-

lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk&19 esa tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ;kph dks mPpkf/kdkjh ds le{k 30 fnu ds vUnj vihy djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izns’k Hkj esa ,d:irk o lqfo/kk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vihy gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh ukekafdr fd, tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkids fopkjkFkZ lq>ko izsf"kr gS fd lc&fMohtu Lrjh; dk;kZy; esa lgk;d tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ml foHkkx ds ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds ;gkW] ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ml foHkkx ds e.My@tksu Lrjh; dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds ;gkW] e.My@tksu Lrjh; dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy ml foHkkx ds foHkkxk/;{k dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds ;gkW rFkk foHkkxk/;{k dk;kZy; ds tu lwpuk vf/kdkjh ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy 'kklu Lrj ij foHkkxk/;{k ls ofj"B vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA

Note:   Under the Provisions of Rule – 24 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, the Registrar General, in the matters of High Court and the District Judge of the District, in the matters of the District Judiciary, have been notified as Appellate authorities against the decisions made by the CPIOs.

13.       Engaging Lawyers not permissible under RTI Act----- The State Information Commission, U.P. has ruled that an applicant cannot engage a lawyer to represent him for the purpose of seeking information from a CPIO or Appellate Authority (Source-- Report dated 28.11.2006 published in the Aligarh issue of Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagran)

14.       Nature of decisions of SIC and CIC to be quasi-judicial and binding---- The CIC has ruled that no public authority, government or statutory organization can claim to be above law and the decisions of the CIC are quasi-judicial in nature and binding upon the concerned authorities. (Source—Report dated 1.2.2007 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

15.       Contempt power sought by CIC---- The CIC has suggested the Central Government to suitably amend the RTI Act, 2005 so as to give power to CIC to initiate contempt proceedings against the violators of the orders of the CIC. (Source—Report dated 12.10.2006 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

16.       CIC empowered to review its previous decisions---- The CIC has ruled that it is empowered under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to review its previous decision. (Source—Report dated 23.9.2006 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

17.       S. 23 of the RTI Act, 2005 bars  the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain any suit, application or other proceedings against any orders passed under this Act.

18.       Firms, Associations, Corporate entities and HUF to be treated as applicants under the RTI Act---- The Central Information Commission has observed that an application or appeal from an association or a partnership firm or a Hindu undivided family (HUF) or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed under the RTI Act, 2005. Elaborating the objectives of the RTI Act, the CIC has further observed that the objective behind the RTI Act is to secure access of information to all citizens to promote transparency and accountability. The CIC has also clarified that since all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extra ordinary jurisdiction from companies, societies and associations under the provisions of the Constitution of which the RTI Act, 2005 is a child and if the courts can give relief to such entities, the CPIOs should also not throw them out on a mere technical ground that such applicants happen to be a legal person and not a citizen. (Source Times of India published from Agra).

19.       Information relating to Vigilance/Departmental Enquiries--- The Central Information Commission has ruled that an official facing vigilance or departmental enquiry is entitled to make inspections of the file of such enquiries and can also seek permissible information available on the record of such enquiries. (Source—Report dated 3-7-2006 and 11.8.2006 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

20.       Addl. District Judges as CPIOs penalized by the      UPSIC---- (A) Where the Addl. District Judge, Hathras had failed as CPIO in furnishing information to the applicant under the RTI Act, 2005 within the statutory period of 30 days and had also failed in appearing before the State Information Commissioner at Lucknow despite repeated opportunities having been given for the same, the Information Commissioner of U.P., Sri Virendra Kumar Saxena awarded Rs. 25,000/- as penalty against the CPIO concerned (ADJ, Hathras) and indicting the aforesaid CPIO/ADJ directed to take further severe action in case of non compliance of the order of the Information Commissioner (Kindly see the report dated 8.1.2008 in the issue of leading Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagran published from Agra)

(B)       Where the Addl. District Judge, Meerut had failed as CPIO in furnishing information to the applicant under the RTI Act, 2005 within the statutory period of 30 days and had also failed in appearing before the State Information Commissioner at Lucknow despite repeated opportunities having been given for the same, the Information Commissioner of U.P., Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta awarded Rs. 25,000/- as penalty against the CPIO concerned (ADJ, Meerut). (Kindly see the report dated 12.1.2008 in the issue of leading Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagran published from Agra)

21.       Information regarding proceedings of DPC---- The Central Information Commission has ruled that an official is entitled to obtain information under the RTI Act, 2005 concerning the proceedings held by the departmental promotion committee (DPC) about his own promotion and also of other co-officials. (Source-- Report dated 24-9-2007 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

22.       Information regarding file notings by Bureaucrats---- The CIC has clarified that an applicant under the RTI Act, 2005 is entitled to access to file notings recorded by the Bureaucrats unless such notings are exempted under the provisions of Sec. 8 & 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. (Source—Reports dated 29.8.2006, 12.9.2006, 17.10.2007 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

23.       Information regarding the list of the names of corrupt officials accessible---- The CIC has ruled (regarding the names of Senior Customs & Excise Officials) that an applicant is entitled to information under the RTI Act, 2005 regarding the names of those officials who are known for their indulgence into corrupt practices in any department and also the names of such officials against whom complaints asto corruption have been made or are pending. (Source—Report published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

24.       RTI Act exposes DGP for fraud and corruption regarding admission of his son in Engineering College---- Where the former DGP of Madhya Pradesh had managed admission of his son in an Engineering College in NRI quota by depositing the fee in foreign currency (US $16,500) through an America based NRI, FIR against the DGP on the basis of information obtained by a journalist/applicant was ordered to be registered regarding the fraud, forgery, cheating and corruption indulged into by him. (Source—Report published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

25.       Development Authorities or Builders bound to furnish information under RTI Act, 2005 regarding flats, maps, sanction orders of buildings etc. ---- An applicant is entitled to obtain certified copies of or information regarding the sight plans, flats, buildings and sanction orders etc. from the Development Authorities or the Private Builders and Contractors. (Source—Report dated 18.8.2006 published in the Agra issue of Daily Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran)

26.       Information regarding ACR are accessible under the RTI Act, 2005---- (i) The CIC has ruled that an official/officer is entitled under the RTI Act, 2005 to access to information regarding his annual assessment or entries recorded in his ACR. A recent decision from the Supreme Court has also ruled that an employee is fully entitled to know about his annual character roll entries whether commendatory or condemnatory. (Source—Report dated 4.5.2006 published in the New Delhi issue of Daily Newspaper Times of India)

(ii)        In the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., 2008 (4) Supreme 462, the Supreme Court has also ruled that every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee’s chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a ‘good’ or ‘average’ or ‘fair’ entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a ‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’ entry.

Note:   But relying upon an earlier decision reported in Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India, 2006 (9) SCC 69, the Supreme Court has in the case of K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India, 2008 (6) Supreme 698 ruled as under--- “As regards the confidential reports of an official, it is for the government to consider how to streamline the procedure for selection and see how to streamline the whole procedure so that even remarks like “good” or “very good” made in ACRs should be made compulsorily communicable to the officers concerned so that an officer may not lose his chance of empanelment at a subsequent point of his service. It is not the function of the Court to issue such directions.

27.       Information regarding private properties of bureaucrats accessible under RTI Act, 2005---- The CIC has ruled that an applicant is entitled to get information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 regarding the movable and immovable property of any Govt. Servant. (Source—Report dated May, 2008 published in the Agra issue of Daily Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran)

28.       Cabinet decision accessible under RTI Act, 2005--- The CIC has ruled that once the decisions taken by cabinet are declared, all the documents relating to the cabinet decisions become accessible to an applicant under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. (Source—Report dated 27.10.2008 published in the Lucknow issue of the Daily Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran)

29.       Income Tax Returns of political parties accessible under RTI Act---- The CIC has ruled that a citizen is entitled under the RTI Act, 2005 to seek information from political parties regarding their funding and income tax returns. (Source—Report published in the English Daily Newspaper Times of India)

30.       Disqualification of the State Chief Information  Commissioner----- In the case noted below, disqualification of the Chief Information Commissioner, Uttaranchal was sought on the ground of holding other office of profit but the Commissioner had tendered his resignation from his earlier office on date of his appointment itself and the appointment of Commissioner was to take effect only from the date of assuming office. The Commissioner assumed office on the date when his resignation was already accepted, it was held by a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court that the Commissioner was not disqualified from holding his post. Allegations against the Commissioner that his appointment was ill-motivated and that it was made due to undue influence and that there were allegations of corruption and irregularities against him was also not established and under these circumstances the appointment of the Commissioner u/s. 15(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 was found valid and disqualification was refused. See--- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2006 (6) ALJ 430 (Uttaranchal High Court—D.B.)

* * * * *