welcome to Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection) | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
61	CIC/SH/A/2015/002195 (321.97 KB)	10 Jan, 2017	Rajbir Phogat vs Dena Bank, Panchkula Section 2(j) — Right to Information — Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation — the Commission relied upon the Full Bench decision dated 7.6.2010 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238, wherein, it was held that the appellant can seek the same information through the Trial Court in full measure and should he succeed in persuading the Court he would have received the records and documents which he is wanting now to access through RTI Act. An information which is evidence or is related to evidence in an ongoing prosecution comes under the control of the Trial Court within the meaning of section 26) of the RTI Act, therefore, all determinations about disclosure of any information relating to an ongoing prosecution should be through the agency of the Trial Court and not otherwise.
62	CIC/YA/A/2015/002534 (0 bytes)	03 Jan, 2017	D Rajkumar vs Geological Survey of India, Bangalore Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Information as already furnished by the Respondent was not warranted in terms of the RTI Act. The Commission held that information exempt from disclosure viz. List of employees who have been issued Charge Memo by virtue of being personal information related to third party and disclosure whereof has not been shown to serve any larger public interest has been supplied by the Respondent. The Commission strongly recommends the officials dealing with the RTI Act should be appropriately trained before being assigned the cases related to the Act. A copy of this order is directed to be marked to the Director, GSI, Remote Sensing & Aerial Surveys for taking appropriate action and ensure that adequate tralning is imparted to officers handling RTI related cases.
63	CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB (550.58 KB)	29 Dec, 2016	Ashok Mishra vs IHQ (Army) Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence. Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.
64	CIC/MP/A/2016/001598 (38.16 KB)	27 Dec, 2016	Shivaji Rao vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kadapa Section 7 (9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Section 8(I)(d) Commercial Confidence. The appellant submitted RTI application to the CPIO, LIC, Kadapa seeking number of policies issued during 2005 to 2015 and its value of assured amount in Kurnool District; number of claims received during the period and its value of assured amount; number of settled claims; number of complaints filed in any District Consumer Forum against LIC of India; number of complaints allowed against District Consumer Forums; etc. through eight points — the Commission held that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and not maintained by the respondent authority in the form sought by the appellant and part of the information pertained to the commercial confidence of the respondent authority, which cannot be provided under the provisions of section 8(I)(d) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
65	CIC/SA/A/2016/000017 (72.02 KB)	27 Dec, 2016	Gurbaksh Singh vs PIO, Punjab University Section 9 Infringement of copy right. The Commission held that unlike a book written by the author, the thesis is the product of combination of research by the author and supervision by the University besides certification by experts in the field. This research also was carried out only after the admission after due scrutiny, proper guidance or supervision, infrastructural support, examination, and evaluation by the University. Finally, the degree is awarded after a viva-voice examination. The sharing of thesis by giving a photocopy cannot be equated with commercial reproduction. The words research itself means re-search thus meaning further research. And if any individual wants to analyze or study and conduct further research on the thesis, such opportunity cannot be denied, especially when primary goal of a University is facilitation of access, making knowledge available, affordable and achievable.
66	CIC/SA/A/2016/001453 (137.12 KB)	27 Dec, 2016	Harinder Dhingra vs MoEF Section 7 (1) — Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. The appellant filed RTI application with PMO's Office in 2015 asking for the certification of the following along with the copies of relevant files: a. that Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem b. that Vande Mataram is the national song c. that Tiger is the national animal d. that peacock is national bird e. that lotus is national flower, and f. that hockey is the national game. The Commission held that there was a spurt of transfers without any iota of information. First, the office of PMO ignored first two parts of RTI question (about national anthem), transferred points c, d and e to the Ministry of MoEF relating to tiger, peacock and lotus. The PIO of MoEF transferred the RTI application for information on aspect of tiger to CPIO, Wildlife division, MoEF. It has forwarded to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the CPIO of NCTA stated that it was again transferred to CPIO, Wildlife Division for information on tiger. According to NTCA officer the "national anthem and national song do not pertain to their authority CPIOs of all high offices simply passed it on to the others without application of mind. it is imperative for the Government of India, especially the office of PM and MoEF to gather the historical evidences to explain the significance of the national anthem, national song, national animal, bird and flower besides national game. If such information is authentically collected, researched and presented, it will go a long way to restore the respect of the people towards this 'nationalism' and remove the misnomers. This will instill real patriotism. The Commission directed the CPIO of MoEF to collect information from its various wings to give complete information about national status accorded to animal, bird and flower along with relevant documents. The Commission requires the MoEF to enquire into the loss of records of notification of national animal and national bird.
67	CIC/YA/A/2015/902774 (154.68 KB)	26 Dec, 2016	Ramabharti Sharma vs Power Grid Corporation of India, Gurgaon Section 7(1) Supply of Information. The Commission held that appellant's husband has been adversely affected due to the administrative decision of the respondent public authority. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. In the considered opinion of the Commission, there is no harm the sealed cover in question is opened and disclosed to the appellant. Further, a clear and cogent reply as to why the case of promotion of appellant's husband was not placed before the successive DPCs shall be spelt out.
68	CIC/SB/A/2015/000404 (81.68 KB)	20 Dec, 2016	Sadanand Paul vs Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ann Section 7(1) Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. Official Languages Act 1963 — Official Languages Rules 1976 Rule 7.2. Reply of RTI application by the public authority to the applicant. The Commission held that in its earlier order in File No.CIC/ SIMI/A/2012/001234 dated 06.022013 had observed that the CPIO had replied, in some cases, in English while the Appellant had sent his RTI application in Hindi. For future, the CPIO must remember to reply to RTI requests in Hindi in that language and not in English.
69	CIC/SH/C/2016/000242 (146.42 KB)	14 Dec, 2016	A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Kolkata Section 7(1) Supply of Information. RTI Rules 2012. Rule 4 (g) fee for providing information. The Complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding all the e-mail ids of officers in the rank of Chief Manager and above, posted in the Head Office of the bank. The CPIO informed the Complainant that the information would be provided to him on receipt of Rs. 20/- as printout charges for four pages @ of Rs. 5/- per page (actual cost) and postal charges amounting to Rs. 28/- for sending the above information. The Complainant states that he has been asked to pay postal charges of Rs. 28/- in this case. The Commission held that the postal charge to be taken into account would relate not only to the letter vide which the information is sent after obtaining photocopying charges etc. from an RTI applicant, but also the letter vide which the applicant is asked by the CPIO to deposit photocopying charges etc. Therefore, we hold that the CPIO's letter dated 18.52016 was also part of the process of supply of information, referred to in rule 4 (g).
70	CIC/SH/C/2016/000228 (139.54 KB)	14 Dec, 2016	A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Ahmedabad Section 6(1) Request for Information. Section 6(3) Transfer of the RTI application to another appropriate public authority not later than 5 days. The Commission held that the CPIO of the Head Office was wrong in transferring the application to the Ahmedabad office of the Respondent public authority under section 6(3), which governs transfer of an application from one public authority to another. If he needed to involve the Ahmedabad office, he could have done so under section 5(4) of the Act, however, while the above points to the need for the CPIO at the Head Office to improve his knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act, the responsibility for not responding to the RTI application lies squarely with the CPIO(s) of the Ahmedabad office and not upon the CPIO of the Head office.
71	CIC/BS/A/2015/001604+001624/11841 (83.16 KB)	05 Dec, 2016	P Kannan vs BSNL, Port Blair Section 7(9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The Commission held that the appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to establish any larger public purpose which would warrant a directive to the respondent to provide the information sought by him even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work.
72	CIC/YA/A/2015/002404 (176.18 KB)	29 Nov, 2016	Sudhangsu Das vs Eastern Coalfields Limited, West Bengal Section 4(1)(b) — Obligation of the Public Authorities to publish information within one hundred and twenty days from the day of enactment of this Act The Commission held that since in this case the examination conducted was for the post of Pharmacist, not any super specialty course, hence the ratio as laid down by the Delhi High Court in the aforementioned case of Vikrant Bhuria is not applicable in the instant case at hand. Hence, the Commission directed the Respondent to furnish the answer keys and question papers as sought by the Appellant. The Commission further held that the marks of the selected candidates who feature in the merit list should be provided. Likewise their cut-off marks and total number secured in written examination & interview should also be provided. In fact is information should have been made available on the website already by the Respondent under section 4(I)(b) of the RTI Act, all such information about marks attained by successful candidates should be made available on the website of the Respondent.
73	CIC/CC/A/2014/002171 (81.48 KB)	28 Nov, 2016	Sheoji Kumar Parak vs PIC, DAV College Managing Committee Section 19(8)(a)(ii). The CIC or SIC, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to appoint CPIO or SPIO. Whether the DAV College Trust and Management Committee is public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in DAV College Trust and Management Society v Director of Public Instruction [AIR 2008 P&H 1171, wherein it was held that DAV is a public authority. As per the RTI Act, either the PIO or an officer of that rank should represent the public authority. This responsibility cannot be abdicated by appointing a counsel. The Commission directed Mr. Punam Suri, President of DAV, CMC to file an affidavit explaining about non-implementation of the High Court Order and reasons for deputing a Law Officer without instructions and information, and not sending the PIO or any other responsible officer of same rank. The Commission also directed Mr. Punam Suri, considering him as deemed PIC), to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not complying with the High Court Order to appoint PIO, for disrespecting the RTI and the Commission by not deputing the PIO or any other officer of same rank, and for delaying the information. The Commission under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act directed the respondent authority to appoint a PIO and make necessary arrangements to provide information to the appellants under RTI Act, including furnishing of point-wise information to this appellant.
74	CIC/YA/C/2016/000034 (213.53 KB)	15 Nov, 2016	Sanjeev Kapoor vs NTPC Limited, Delhi Section 6(1) Request for Information Can a citizen insist on seeking information under the Right to Information Act even if the same can be accessed through some other alternate channel or mode? The Commission in various pronouncements had held that the right to seek information under the RTI Act does not get eclipsed due to availability of an alternate channel to seek defence documents. The issue of availability of alternate channels to access information has been dealt by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. vs State Information Commission Kerala & Anr. (B) Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would the process of investigation — What is the extent of applicability of section 8(1)(h) in the cases of ongoing disciplinary proceedings? — the Commission held that the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately chosen the word 'which would', reflecting that the only eventuality flowing from such disclosure would necessarily result in impeding the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Thus, the public authority must exhibit cogent material to support that disclosure would necessarily impede the process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Had the legislature intended to cast a blanket cover in all such cases, it would have used the expression 'which could impede'. Upon a plain reading of the statute, the Commission is left with no doubt that the onus to exhibit imminent & real threat of impeding process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders is cast upon the respondents.
75	CIC/RM/A/2014/001582-SA (141.28 KB)	01 Nov, 2016	M V Gode vs PIO, KVS Section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public Section 4(1)(d). Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons. The Commission held that the documents given under this RTI on application and first appeal, should have been disclosed voluntarily by the KVS on its own portal or notice board or by post to all the teacher candidates proposed for awards as mandated by section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act. The Central Awards Committee headed by the Commissioner of KVS has a duty to give reasons for such decision, whether it is administrative or quasi judicial, under Section 4(1)(d). The KVS has a duty to explain the reasons to all affected persons under Section 4(1)(c) of RTI Act. Here the appellant and all other rejected teachers are entitled to this disclosure under these provisions of RTI Act. The Commission directed the respondent authority to disclose from time to time at each year how the candidates were selected or not selected for the final nomination for those awards as per Section 4 of RTI Act, prepare FAQs and answer relating to process and finalisation of nomination for awards and initiate all necessary measures to ensure the transparency in nominations for awards as mandated by Sections and (d) of RTI Act.

61

CIC/SH/A/2015/002195
(321.97 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2017

Rajbir Phogat vs Dena Bank, Panchkula

Section 2(j) — Right to Information — Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would impede the process of investigation — the Commission relied upon the Full Bench decision dated 7.6.2010 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238, wherein, it was held that the appellant can seek the same information through the Trial Court in full measure and should he succeed in persuading the Court he would have received the records and documents which he is wanting now to access through RTI Act. An information which is evidence or is related to evidence in an ongoing prosecution comes under the control of the Trial Court within the meaning of section 26) of the RTI Act, therefore, all determinations about disclosure of any information relating to an ongoing prosecution should be through the agency of the Trial Court and not otherwise.

62

CIC/YA/A/2015/002534
(0 bytes) pdf icon

03 Jan, 2017

D Rajkumar vs Geological Survey of India, Bangalore

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Information as already furnished by the Respondent was not warranted in terms of the RTI Act. The Commission held that information exempt from disclosure viz. List of employees who have been issued Charge Memo by virtue of being personal information related to third party and disclosure whereof has not been shown to serve any larger public interest has been supplied by the Respondent.

The Commission strongly recommends the officials dealing with the RTI Act should be appropriately trained before being assigned the cases related to the Act. A copy of this order is directed to be marked to the Director, GSI, Remote Sensing & Aerial Surveys for taking appropriate action and ensure that adequate tralning is imparted to officers handling RTI related cases.

63

CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB
(550.58 KB) pdf icon

29 Dec, 2016

Ashok Mishra vs IHQ (Army)

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence. Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.

64

CIC/MP/A/2016/001598
(38.16 KB) pdf icon

27 Dec, 2016

Shivaji Rao vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kadapa

Section 7 (9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Section 8(I)(d) Commercial Confidence. The appellant submitted RTI application to the CPIO, LIC, Kadapa seeking number of policies issued during 2005 to 2015 and its value of assured amount in Kurnool District; number of claims received during the period and its value of assured amount; number of settled claims; number of complaints filed in any District Consumer Forum against LIC of India; number of complaints allowed against District Consumer Forums; etc. through eight points — the Commission held that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and not maintained by the respondent authority in the form sought by the appellant and part of the information pertained to the commercial confidence of the respondent authority, which cannot be provided under the provisions of section 8(I)(d) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.

65

CIC/SA/A/2016/000017
(72.02 KB) pdf icon

27 Dec, 2016

Gurbaksh Singh vs PIO, Punjab University

Section 9 Infringement of copy right. The Commission held that unlike a book written by the author, the thesis is the product of combination of research by the author and supervision by the University besides certification by experts in the field. This research also was carried out only after the admission after due scrutiny, proper guidance or supervision, infrastructural support, examination, and evaluation by the University. Finally, the degree is awarded after a viva-voice examination. The sharing of thesis by giving a photocopy cannot be equated with commercial reproduction. The words research itself means re-search thus meaning further research. And if any individual wants to analyze or study and conduct further research on the thesis, such opportunity cannot be denied, especially when primary goal of a University is facilitation of access, making knowledge available, affordable and achievable.

66

CIC/SA/A/2016/001453
(137.12 KB) pdf icon

27 Dec, 2016

Harinder Dhingra vs MoEF

Section 7 (1) — Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. The appellant filed RTI application with PMO's Office in 2015 asking for the certification of the following along with the copies of relevant files:
a. that Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem
b. that Vande Mataram is the national song
c. that Tiger is the national animal
d. that peacock is national bird
e. that lotus is national flower, and
f. that hockey is the national game.
The Commission held that there was a spurt of transfers without any iota of information. First, the office of PMO ignored first two parts of RTI question (about national anthem), transferred points c, d and e to the Ministry of MoEF relating to tiger, peacock and lotus. The PIO of MoEF transferred the RTI application for information on aspect of tiger to CPIO, Wildlife division, MoEF. It has forwarded to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the CPIO of NCTA stated that it was again transferred to CPIO, Wildlife Division for information on tiger. According to NTCA officer the "national anthem and national song do not pertain to their authority CPIOs of all high offices simply passed it on to the others without application of mind. it is imperative for the Government of India, especially the office of PM and MoEF to gather the historical evidences to explain the significance of the national anthem, national song, national animal, bird and flower besides national game. If such information is authentically collected, researched and presented, it will go a long way to restore the respect of the people towards this 'nationalism' and remove the misnomers. This will instill real patriotism. The Commission directed the CPIO of MoEF to collect information from its various wings to give complete information about national status accorded to animal, bird and flower along with relevant documents. The Commission requires the MoEF to enquire into the loss of records of notification of national animal and national bird.

67

CIC/YA/A/2015/902774
(154.68 KB) pdf icon

26 Dec, 2016

Ramabharti Sharma vs Power Grid Corporation of India, Gurgaon

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. The Commission held that appellant's husband has been adversely affected due to the administrative decision of the respondent public authority. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. In the considered opinion of the Commission, there is no harm the sealed cover in question is opened and disclosed to the appellant. Further, a clear and cogent reply as to why the case of promotion of appellant's husband was not placed before the successive DPCs shall be spelt out.

68

CIC/SB/A/2015/000404
(81.68 KB) pdf icon

20 Dec, 2016

Sadanand Paul vs Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ann

Section 7(1) Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days. Official Languages Act 1963 — Official Languages Rules 1976 Rule 7.2. Reply of RTI application by the public authority to the applicant. The Commission held that in its earlier order in File No.CIC/ SIMI/A/2012/001234 dated 06.022013 had observed that the CPIO had replied, in some cases, in English while the Appellant had sent his RTI application in Hindi. For future, the CPIO must remember to reply to RTI requests in Hindi in that language and not in English.

69

CIC/SH/C/2016/000242
(146.42 KB) pdf icon

14 Dec, 2016

A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Kolkata

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. RTI Rules 2012. Rule 4 (g) fee for providing information. The Complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding all the e-mail ids of officers in the rank of Chief Manager and above, posted in the Head Office of the bank. The CPIO informed the Complainant that the information would be provided to him on receipt of Rs. 20/- as printout charges for four pages @ of Rs. 5/- per page (actual cost) and postal charges amounting to Rs. 28/- for sending the above information. The Complainant states that he has been asked to pay postal charges of Rs. 28/- in this case.

The Commission held that the postal charge to be taken into account would relate not only to the letter vide which the information is sent after obtaining photocopying charges etc. from an RTI applicant, but also the letter vide which the applicant is asked by the CPIO to deposit photocopying charges etc. Therefore, we hold that the CPIO's letter dated 18.52016 was also part of the process of supply of information, referred to in rule 4 (g).

70

CIC/SH/C/2016/000228
(139.54 KB) pdf icon

14 Dec, 2016

A. R Shah vs United Bank of India, Ahmedabad

Section 6(1) Request for Information. Section 6(3) Transfer of the RTI application to another appropriate public authority not later than 5 days.

The Commission held that the CPIO of the Head Office was wrong in transferring the application to the Ahmedabad office of the Respondent public authority under section 6(3), which governs transfer of an application from one public authority to another. If he needed to involve the Ahmedabad office, he could have done so under section 5(4) of the Act, however, while the above points to the need for the CPIO at the Head Office to improve his knowledge of the provisions of the RTI Act, the responsibility for not responding to the RTI application lies squarely with the CPIO(s) of the Ahmedabad office and not upon the CPIO of the Head office.

71

CIC/BS/A/2015/001604+001624/11841
(83.16 KB) pdf icon

05 Dec, 2016

P Kannan vs BSNL, Port Blair

Section 7(9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The Commission held that the appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to establish any larger public purpose which would warrant a directive to the respondent to provide the information sought by him even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work.

72

CIC/YA/A/2015/002404
(176.18 KB) pdf icon

29 Nov, 2016

Sudhangsu Das vs Eastern Coalfields Limited, West Bengal

Section 4(1)(b) — Obligation of the Public Authorities to publish information within one hundred and twenty days from the day of enactment of this Act

The Commission held that since in this case the examination conducted was for the post of Pharmacist, not any super specialty course, hence the ratio as laid down by the Delhi High Court in the aforementioned case of Vikrant Bhuria is not applicable in the instant case at hand. Hence, the Commission directed the Respondent to furnish the answer keys and question papers as sought by the Appellant. The Commission further held that the marks of the selected candidates who feature in the merit list should be provided. Likewise their cut-off marks and total number secured in written examination & interview should also be provided. In fact is information should have been made available on the website already by the Respondent under section 4(I)(b) of the RTI Act, all such information about marks attained by successful candidates should be made available on the website of the Respondent.

73

CIC/CC/A/2014/002171
(81.48 KB) pdf icon

28 Nov, 2016

Sheoji Kumar Parak vs PIC, DAV College Managing Committee

Section 19(8)(a)(ii). The CIC or SIC, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to appoint CPIO or SPIO.

Whether the DAV College Trust and Management Committee is public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in DAV College Trust and Management Society v Director of Public Instruction [AIR 2008 P&H 1171, wherein it was held that DAV is a public authority. As per the RTI Act, either the PIO or an officer of that rank should represent the public authority. This responsibility cannot be abdicated by appointing a counsel.

The Commission directed Mr. Punam Suri, President of DAV, CMC to file an affidavit explaining about non-implementation of the High Court Order and reasons for deputing a Law Officer without instructions and information, and not sending the PIO or any other responsible officer of same rank. The Commission also directed Mr. Punam Suri, considering him as deemed PIC), to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not complying with the High Court Order to appoint PIO, for disrespecting the RTI and the Commission by not deputing the PIO or any other officer of same rank, and for delaying the information. The Commission under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act directed the respondent authority to appoint a PIO and make necessary arrangements to provide information to the appellants under RTI Act, including furnishing of point-wise information to this appellant.

74

CIC/YA/C/2016/000034
(213.53 KB) pdf icon

15 Nov, 2016

Sanjeev Kapoor vs NTPC Limited, Delhi

Section 6(1) Request for Information

Can a citizen insist on seeking information under the Right to Information Act even if the same can be accessed through some other alternate channel or mode? The Commission in various pronouncements had held that the right to seek information under the RTI Act does not get eclipsed due to availability of an alternate channel to seek defence documents. The issue of availability of alternate channels to access information has been dealt by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. vs State Information Commission Kerala & Anr.

(B) Section 8(1)(h) — Information disclosure of which would the process of investigation — What is the extent of applicability of section 8(1)(h) in the cases of ongoing disciplinary proceedings? — the Commission held that the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately chosen the word 'which would', reflecting that the only eventuality flowing from such disclosure would necessarily result in impeding the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Thus, the public authority must exhibit cogent material to support that disclosure would necessarily impede the process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Had the legislature intended to cast a blanket cover in all such cases, it would have used the expression 'which could impede'. Upon a plain reading of the statute, the Commission is left with no doubt that the onus to exhibit imminent & real threat of impeding process of investigation/apprehension or prosecution of offenders is cast upon the respondents.

75

CIC/RM/A/2014/001582-SA
(141.28 KB) pdf icon

01 Nov, 2016

M V Gode vs PIO, KVS

Section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public
Section 4(1)(d). Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.

The Commission held that the documents given under this RTI on application and first appeal, should have been disclosed voluntarily by the KVS on its own portal or notice board or by post to all the teacher candidates proposed for awards as mandated by section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act. The Central Awards Committee headed by the Commissioner of KVS has a duty to give reasons for such decision, whether it is administrative or quasi judicial, under Section 4(1)(d). The KVS has a duty to explain the reasons to all affected persons under Section 4(1)(c) of RTI Act. Here the appellant and all other rejected teachers are entitled to this disclosure under these provisions of RTI Act.

The Commission directed the respondent authority to disclose from time to time at each year how the candidates were selected or not selected for the final nomination for those awards as per Section 4 of RTI Act, prepare FAQs and answer relating to process and finalisation of nomination for awards and initiate all necessary measures to ensure the transparency in nominations for awards as mandated by Sections and (d) of RTI Act.