Whether inordinate delay in providing information under right to information Act amounts to harassment?

 Further, Commission is convinced with the averment of the Appellant for having suffered gross detriment due to the delay of over 2 years in providing the information to him. Appellant deserves to be compensated on this account. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, Commission directs the public authority through its Chief Executive Officer to compensate the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. The CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the Appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Central Information Commission

(Before Divya Prakash Sinha, IC)

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Aabid Hussain Vs  CPIO, O/o CEO, Cantonment Board, Jabalpur (MP) … 

File No. CIC/DCABO/A/2016/271739/IARMY/SD

Decided on October 16, 2017, [Hearing on: 16/10/2017]

RTI application filed on	:	31/08/2015
PIO replied on	:	No reply
First appeal filed on	:	05/10/2015
First Appellate Authority order	:	No order
Second Appeal dated	:	24/11/2015

Citation:2017SCC ONLINE CIC  1506

Print Page

CIC to Bar council of delhi: Publish cases of professional misconduct of Advocates

It is important to remember words of Krishna Iyer, “indeed, the monopoly conferred on the
legal profession by Parliament is coupled with a responsibility ­ a responsibility towards the
people, especially the poor” and that responsibility has to be practically visible in functioning of
every advocate. If not people should know action against him. Right to know of the people
arises out of this responsibility of Bar Council.
16.   Section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, mandates the public authority to “provide reasons for its
administrative or quasi­judicial decisions to affected persons”. Bar Council should understand
the purport of above referred judicial pronouncements is properly understood, the Bar Council
has to publish these reports because generally entire people are positively affected by the
good conduct to some extent and harmfully affected by misconduct of the advocates, and if the
Bar Council punishes them or brings out genuineness of service, it will neutralize the impact.
For that purposes it has to publish the reports of the disciplinary proceedings. 
17.    The Commission agrees with the justifiable contention of the appellant and directs the
Bar Council of Delhi to report/publish the cases of professional misconduct, both proved and
not proved, at regular intervals or as and when the decision was taken in compliance of
Section 4 (1) of RTI Act in their official website or journal or by any other means of publication
convenient to it. Commission also direct the PIO to furnish para wise information to the
appellant within 15 days of receipt of this Order.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2016/000381
Tapan Chaudhary v. Bar Council of Delhi
 Decided on: 20­-07­-2016

Print Page

CIC: Misuse of RTI by employee amounts to misconduct and liable for departmental enquiry

Thus the Commission holds that such a misuse by employee will amount to misconduct
and, acting under Section 19(8)(a) of RTI Act, require the public authority to take following
steps to address the misuse of RTI by its own employees like appellant: 
a)  The public authority should proceed with disciplinary action against the appellant for his
misuse of RTI which amounted to misconduct, before April 25, 2016. Every misuse of system
like, misuse of PGMS, RTI and Social media shall be considered as an item of misconduct that
invite disciplinary action. 
b)   If the mis­users of RTI involved in invading privacy by video recording and spreading
false allegations through social media network, the head of the institute need to examine if it
amounts to any offence under IPC or IT Act, and shall report to appropriate authorities
including police.  
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/002028
Mohd. Shakeel Saifi v. PIO, Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Delhi.
 Decision: 29­-03-­2016

Print Page

CIC:Reports of Lt. Governor of Delhi to Centre can be made available under RTI Act

 There is no way that public authority can say that report given by the Lt Governor to
Union Government would cause any breach of Parliament or State Assembly. There is not
even iota of justification given by public authority about possibility of such ‘breach’ of
privilege. 
Precedents
 Most interestingly, the Governors in recent times positively responded to RTI requests of
Mr. Venkatesh Naik of CHRI, and shared copies of their reports to the Union Government
recommending imposition of President’s Rule in respective states. In response to RTI
request dated 11.1.2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs has shared report given by the
Governor N N Vohra of Jammu & Kashmir dated 9th January 2016 to Prime Minister and
Home Minister referring to responses of political parties regarding formation of government
in J & K, President’s signed copy of letter dated 9th  January 2016 and proclamation of
Government’s Rule. The letters written to presidents of Political Parties and file notings
were also given.  The MHA in another response to RTI request dated 22nd March 2016
gave the copies of report given by Sri J P Raj Khowa, Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to
President of India on 15th  January 2016.   The Attorney General shared the Report and
other documents from the office of Governor of Uttarakhand in the month March 2016
which was reviewed and based on which the Uttarakhand High Court invalidated the
President’s Rule. Then, how it is logical or legal to deny the report of the LG advising the
Union Government to dissolve the Delhi State Assembly and other related papers.
Information sought has to be shared, because a) the immunity under Article 163(3) will not
apply to Lt G., b) such immunity is from probing but not from disclosure, c) request for
information is not probe into advice, d) not exempted by any provision of RTI Act, e) there
is no stay operating on disclosure, f) the information sought is already known, g) there is
need for transparency in decision making process regarding dissolving and elected house
in public interest, h) there is neither executive privilege nor legislative privilege and i) there
is nothing to show that disclosure would case breach of parliamentary privilege.  
 The Commission directs both the office of Honorable LG and the Ministry of Home Affairs,
to provide certified copies of report along with all other papers sent by Honorable LG to the
Union Government to the appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 
   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/000748

Aditya Jain Vs. Lieutenant Governor Secretariat
 Decision: 25­-05-­2016

Print Page

Whether Officials accused of sexual harassment are entitled to get copy of complaint under RTI?

 Accused government officials are entitled to get a copy of the complaint against them even if the allegations pertain to sexual harassment, the Central Information Commission has held.

While pulling up Delhi University for withholding records related to a complaint filed by PG students at GB Pant Hospital in Delhi against Dr Arun Lata Agarwal on the grounds that allegations pertained to sexual harassment, CIC said it could not “locate” any such allegation against her.

“In spite of repeated deep scrutiny, the Commission could not locate any point of allegation related to sexual harassment,” Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said.

Acharyulu said the Central Public Information Officer should have seen the rules and FAQs circulated by the Department of Personnel and Training to understand that officers accused of sexual harassment were entitled to have a copy of the sexual harassment complaint against them.

“...the CPIO cannot deny the disclosure of the complaint related information or papers to the accused officer. It was not correct for CPIO to raise this kind of contention,” Acharyulu said.

The case related to allegations of harassment levelled against Aruna Agarwal and her husband Sanjay Agarwal by nine PG students after which she was sent back to the Centre by Delhi Government.

Through the RTI application, Aruna Agarwal had sought the information related to the complaint and the inquiry from the University which refused claiming disclosure may hamper physical security of complainants and that it is held in fiduciary capacity.

During the hearing before CIC, the CPIO representing the University claimed that students had filed complaints against the Agarwal couple alleging sexual harassment and as per the law details about complaint and related information could not be given to the two doctors.

After perusal of communication between National Commission of Women and the University, the Commissioner said the students were complaining against Sanjay Agarwal alleging that he caused mental harassment, created vicious working atmosphere and continued humiliating behaviour.

Acharyulu noted that M S Bhatia, HOD of Psychiatry, referred to representation consisting allegation of ‘sexual harassment’ against Sanjay Agarwal and sought immediate action to suspend him.

“Most of the allegations (levelled by PG students) are about harassment by husband and wife together. The allegations made in 23 points do not consist any specific sexual harassment allegation against either Sanjay (husband) or Aruna Agarwal (wife) individually.

“Every allegation was made against both jointly. The complaints did not reveal any allegation that both of them together caused any ‘sexual harassment’,” Acharyulu said.

He said CPIO was not correct in alleging that complaints by nine students (both male and female) against husband and wife were of sexual harassment.

“Even if it is assumed that the complaint of PG students against supervising couple of is of sexual harassment, the CPIO cannot deny the disclosure of the complaint related information or papers to the accused officer,” he said as he directed disclosure of complaint.

He said when the complaint of nine students cannot be considered as complaint of sexual harassment, the contention of the CPIO that it cannot be disclosed will totally fail.

“The Commission considers, after due study of the sealed file which includes recommendations of NCW, that the complaint is not in nature of sexual harassment and that is why it was not referred to the Committee against sexual harassment. No committee was constituted to inquire into this charge,” he said.
   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/RM/A/2014/000313­SA

A.L. Agarwal Vs. Delhi University

Decision: 9.12.2015

Print Page

Whether parents can seek answersheets on behalf of their minor children under RTI?

 The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, considers that the
appellant who is the father of the candidate is entitled for the copies of the answer sheets of his
son, which shall be supplied to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, free of
cost.  The Commission also holds that the undertakings prescribed by the CBSE will be serious
obstructions to the access to   information.  The Public Authority can only deny the information
under Sections 8/9 of the RTI Act.  Therefore, the Commission directs the then CPIO, Mr. Manish
Agrawal  and  the present  CPIO  to show cause why  penaltyshould  not be imposed   for  not
furnishing  the  information  within  the  prescribed  period.     Their   explanation  should  reach  the
Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.  
    The Commission further directs the CBSE to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/­ to the
appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order for the hardship he was made to face
and  undergo harassment  in obtaining the information from the Public Authority.
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/RM/A/2014/0000014­SA

Vijay Kumar Mishra, Samastipur Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Patna
 Decision: 02­-12­-2015

Print Page

CIC imposed fine of Rs 10000/- on govt for failure to provide updated legal information on its website

 Needless to say that a duty upon the state to inform citizens about the Law as and when it  was   made   and   the   citizens   also   have   right   to   know   of   the   Law.   It   is   impossible   for   any  Government to expect obedience to their Law without informing the people in legible form. It is  more difficult especially when the text of Law is not available in easy accessible format. It will  result in two major problems, (1) People will be kept in dark about their Laws, (2) Private  Publishers  will exploit  this in­access to Law to make money by publishing updating Acts as  their   copyrighted   work.   It   is   surprising   that   the   Ministry   has   not   used   the   Information  technology to provide access to text of law. 

7.    The Law and enactments are in public domain and none can claim copyright in the law.  Apart from this general right to know, RTI Act has offered a specific and enforceable right to  information. Section 4 mandates the Ministry of Law to place the texts of enactments. It is the  duty   of   Legislative   Department   to   provide   information   about   access   of   every   updated  enactment. It is not just an recommended obligation under Section 4 (1) (a) of RTI Act, but a  constitutional mandate, a legal necessity, and an essential requirement for peace.   It is not  possible to imagine 'enactment' becoming secret because of this ambiguity and non­legibility.  

8.      The  CPIO informed  Commission  about  updating  of  enactments,  though he could  not  authentically say anything about realization of the access. The respondent authority has to  accelerate the process and access should be assured.

9.  The Commission records its appreciation for Mr. Vansh Sharad Gupta. Although he filed his  RTI   application   in  2012   when   he  was   a  2nd  year   student,   his   complaint   has   reached   this  Commission   for   hearing   10.9.2015.   Even   though   the   information   sought   by   him   will   be  irrelevant due to delay, the issue raised by him is significant not only for law students like him  but also for common citizens. Needless to say that in the absence of access to law there would  be no access to justice.

10.   Legal consultant of the Commission tried to access the Code of Criminal Procedure Act,  1973 as amended by The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, after Nirbhaya incident in  Delhi. But the amended version of this Act was also not available on the public domain. If a  woman wanted to know what exactly is the latest law on the rights of women, she has to take  the trouble of researching through websites or have to buy it from publishers who sell Bare  Acts at exorbitant rates after owning it with short notes, exploiting this complexity of access  and non­availability of updated version, officially.  

11.         It   is   the   minimum   responsibility   of   state   to   provide   updated   information   about  amendments, which will go in long way in helping people. The access to law is not just a  requirement of Law student and law researchers, but a necessity of all citizens. For instance,  the Parliament by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has amended section 100 of  Indian Penal Code, which provide a right of private defence of body even to the extent of  causing death in case of acid attack. Many men or women are not even aware of self defence  right that they can even kill assailant if the later is attacking to kill, rape or throw acid, or cause  grievous hurt etc.

DECISION :

11.     The Commission directs the respondent authority, Legislative Department to inform the  complainant and the Commission as to what action has been taken including details of the  programme of updation, the possible date of its completion, expenditure involved, personnel  employed etc. The Commission also recommends the department to recognise urgency and  significance of the issue, expedite the process, allocate more fund to employ more personnel  and complete the process of updation as soon as possible. 

12.  The Commission also directs the respondent authority to examine the functionality of the  email   ID   in   view   of   the   Complainant's   claim   that   most   of   the   email   ID   have   failed.   The  Legislative Department also should have perfect RTI filing system and answer mechanism. 

13.    For the failures of the above, the Commission, exercising its powers under Section 19(8)

(b)   of   RTI   Act,   directs   the   respondent   public   authority   to   pay   Rs.10,000/­   (Rupees   Ten  Thousand only) as a token compensation to the library of the National Law School of India  University, Bangaluru, for causing loss of time of several law students, more specifically of the  appellant,   not   providing   easy   access   to   email,   or   not   making   email   ids   easily   available,  delaying the information etc, within one month. 

Central Information Commission

Mr vansh Sharad gupta vs Legislative Department on 4 November, 2015

                     Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                             Information Commissioner


                                           CIC/SS/C/2013/900008­SA

                    

Print Page

CIC; voters must be informed before deletion of their names from voters list

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2015/000157
Sumit Vs. Chief Election Officer

Decision:   29-­07­-2015
Summary:  The voter has a right to know, first that his name was deleted, then the reasons for
decision to delete his name from the voter’s list. Such an arbitrary deletion and denial of information
even after deletion, followed by non­response to RTI request for reasons for that deletion would
certainly amount to denial of a very significant Constitutional & statutory right to vote and right to
information under RTI Act. 
Principles of Natural Justice, Section 22 of Representation of People Act 1950, Section 21A of the
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and the ratio in landmark judgment of Justice L Narasimha
Reddy   of   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   demand   that   a   valid   voter  is   expected  to  get  adequate
opportunity of being heard by the authority before deletion of name of voter.   The Commission
records its appreciation for appellant, the young boy for his anguish at the unjust denial of opportunity
to cast his vote in recent Assembly elections in Delhi, showing  greater concern for the right to vote
and choosing the path of RTI to seek the reasons and restoration of right lost. In fact, he was
performing his duty as alert citizen of this democratic country to secure his most valuable right, i.e.,
right to vote. 
The Commission directs CPIO of the Public Authority (Chief Election Officer) to show cause why
penalty should not  be imposed for not furnishing the information to the complainant within the
prescribed period, to inform appellant the reasons for deletion of his name from the voter’s list, to
inform if any inquiry was conducted into such deletion after deletion, if not to conduct an inquiry into
arbitrary  deletion of his name, to inform what action was  proposed to be taken against officer
responsible for deleting his name, to inform when his name and right to vote will be restored, to
prepare a set of guidelines to follow before deleting names, to inform fact of proposed deletion,
grounds for such  action  of  deletion,  and provision  of  adequate opportunity to  affected  voter to
represent his case etc, and post the same on official website, along with FAQs on the subject, and to
pay Rs 10,000/­ compensation on the grounds that appellant was not informed about deletion, not
informed about the grounds/reasons for deletion which amounted to violation of right, and he was not
given any response to his RTI application within 30 days as stipulated by RTI Act.
Parties Present:   

Print Page

Whether litigant can seek information under RTI without attending court?

 In an earlier order in a different second appeal the Commission admonished the appellant

for running parallel inquiry and rejected his appeal. In case of Vijay Kumar Gupta V.

Dwarka   Court   (CIC/SA/C/2015/000021   &   CIC/SA/C/2015/000033)   this   Commission

orderd:

“….the complainant was warned by the Commission not to misuse the

RTI Act by running a parallel inquiry against the Courts where his cases are

pending for trial.   Once the appellant is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court

of law, either as a petitioner or respondent, he will have to follow and complete

that process in a Court of law.  The common sense and the common law explains

that a citizen cannot run the processes for two remedies at a time, on the same

subject matter, each of which will obstruct the other.  The action of the appellant

in seeking information through the RTI Act about a case pending for trial in a

court of law, without attending the court, reflects malicious intention and it would

amount to obstruction in the legal proceedings and also disrespect to the process

of adjudication. 

With the above observations, the Commission rejects both the above complaints.”

Similarly in another case of Vijay Kumar Gupta (CIC/SA/A/2014/000965)

5…The appellant is trying to run a simultaneous/parallel trial through RTI Act.  It is

misuse of RTI. This RTI application of the appellant itself is an obstruction or

impediment to the proceedings before the court of law. Once he is subjected to the

jurisdiction of the Court of law, either as a petitioner or respondent, he will have to

follow and complete that process in a Court of law.  He has to explore the possibility

of getting information through that process only because he is already in the Court

of law.  The common sense and the common law explains that a citizen cannot run

processes for two remedies at a time on the same subject matter each of which will

obstruct the other. 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/SA/A/2015/000208

Ram Kishan v. State Council of Educational Research & Training 

 Decision: 19.08.2015

Print Page

Whether details of counselling between estranged couple and counselor can be disclosed under RTI?

The   Commission   having   perused   the   file   found   that   the   file   is   a   proceeding   for  counselling, a prelude to or part of conciliation. The conciliation in general will include the  counselling also. The mediator or conciliator will advise or guide or apprise the parties of the  issues or steps that help resolving the dispute. When there is a counselling between a person  and counsellor, there emerges fiduciary relationship. Appellant has already filed a case for  domestic  violence.   Wife  claimed  that  proceeding  before  legal   service  authority   was  in  the  nature of divorce proceeding.  From the nature of proceedings it is apparently clear that it was  not divorce proceeding, but a counselling and conciliation proceeding, confidentiality of which  need to be protected as per the law and in public interest.  Information regarding negotiation,  mediation, conciliation and counselling will fall under exempted clause of information given in  fiduciary capacity and also private/personal information of other spouse and hence shall not be  disclosed. Hence the appeal is rejected.

Central Information Commission

Mrs rama Aggarwal vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 8 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

                   


            Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

                                           Information Commissioner



                                           CIC/SA/A/2015/000305 

Print Page

CIC directs Delhi Women Commission to disclose rape records

New Delhi: Amid outrage over the interview of a December 16 gang-rape convict, CIC on Wednesday directed the Delhi Commission of Women to make public records of rapes committed in the national capital with stern conditions to ensure that identities of victims are not disclosed.

"The Commission observes that the records relating to rape victims cannot be totally blocked from sharing for research purposes on the ground of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

"When it is possible to separate information that can be given from that cannot be given, the PIO has to invoke doctrine of severability to facilitate the information," Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said.

The case relates to Baladevan Rangaraju who claimed that he wanted information on rape victims for research purpose and personally requested the Secretary of the Department, who after knowing the purpose, refused to furnish the records.

Rangaraju said information sought by him had to be maintained by the Department according to Delhi Commission for Women Act, 1994.

The Commission expressed concern over the issue of the protection of privacy of the rape victims and contended that it was not possible to separate the names of the victims from various documents including medico-legal case reports.

"Facilitate inspection of the records to the authorised female representative of the appellant with an assurance that they shall not bring any electronic device like video records, mobile, camera etc, block out the names and personal details of the victim and accused by whitener on the photostat copies," Sridhar said setting stern guidelines for disclosure of sensitive information.

He said each paper shall be verified by the officials of Delhi Women Commission to ensure that nowhere victims' names and private details are revealed before certifying.

"The appellant is directed to enter a non-disclosure agreement with an undertaking that he/his representative will not reveal information about the personal details of the victims and the accused and that they shall be responsible for any such revelation through the documents shared," he said.

Acharyulu warned that any such disclosure would not only result in the breach of undertaking but also an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

"It shall be responsibility of the respondent authority to secure records, and the appellant shall share the copy of the research report with the Women's Commission and this Commission," the Commissioner said in his order.

Read full judgment here

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/SA/A/2014/001250

Mr Baladevan Rangaraju v. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD

Print Page

Whether Land records are private information or ‘third party’ information?

“The land records containing the names of different owners and describing boundaries and extent of the land are public records and the information such as names of persons and the extent of land owned or possessed by the public authority is neither private information nor ‘third party’ information,” held CIC while directing the Delhi Government to consider displaying the land records on the prominent walls of villages for the convenience of the people as done in Telangana and several villages in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. This order of CIC came upon an appeal filed by a person who sought information regarding number of plot holders, land covered by the plots and the extent of the land left for agriculture in Kamabavala Village. Said information was denied by the Delhi government officials on the ground that property details of other persons available in land records of the village constitute the ‘third party’ information of various owners and thus could not be given under RTI to the appellant. The Commission rejected the said contention and observed that the land is open and transaction of change of ownership of a particular piece of land is registered with Registrar for being recorded as admissible evidence of that ownership for public to know. Registration is notification to society and evidence of the transaction and not an affair to be kept secret. CIC further observed that being a public record held by the Revenue Department, it is the duty of the public authority to provide access to the public, as transparency is the only way by which corruption can be prevented. “Transparency of the land records is the mandate as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Public Records Act, 1993”, noted CIC while directing Delhi government to provide relevant information to the appellant and also to explore writing the record of rights on the prominent walls in villages.

Central Information Commission

Mrsurender Pal Singh vs Gnctd on 29 December, 2014

Print Page

Whether district court can be exempted to provide information in RTI if said information relates to confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by office of District Judge for appointment of ministerial staff?

 During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that they have the record but
claimed that as per Rule 7(iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules,
2008, PIO may not provide the information to the applicant if the information relates
to the confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the
office of the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff. He also added
that nearly 62,000 candidates appeared for the exam and it will pose huge burden
on them if copies were provided to each and every candidate.
In the present case the exemption taken by the PIO for denying the
information sought by the appellant is Rule 7 (iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2008 which states as under :
 Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or
the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the
applicant on the following grounds:…. (iii) The information relates to the
confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the office of
the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff.
5. The Commission had in CIC/SG/A/2010/002021/9247 and in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/1147 with regard to Validity of exemptions contained in
District Court Rules visàvis
RTI Act had observed as follows:
“Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act lay down the grounds on the basis of which
information may be denied by the PIO. The District Court Rules have been made
by the High Court of Delhi (the “Delhi HC”) in exercise of its powers under
Section 28(1) of the RTI Act and notified in the New Delhi Gazette on May 6,
2009. Rules framed by a competent authority under Section 28(1) of the RTI Act
cannot go beyond the exemptions provided in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The
Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts have categorically held
that subordinate legislations or rules cannot go beyond the letter of the delegating
legislation.
In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v Shri Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC
2143, the Supreme Court of India held:
“It is well recognized principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule
making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule
which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent
therewith or repugnant thereto.”
The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to
information giving citizens the right to information. Hence, as observed by the Delhi

HC in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal WP (C) No. 188/2009, the
RTI Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception.
According to the RTI Act, information may be exempted from disclosure in
accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed
while rejecting a demand for disclosure.
The Delhi HC in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) No. 3114/2007 has held that
exemptions in the RTI should be strictly construed. It explained:
“Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions
under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental
right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
manner as to shadow the very right itself.”
6. Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147 while dealing with Rule 7 made under Delhi District
Court Rules, 2008 had observed that:
“It must be noted that no public body is permitted under the RTI Act to take upon
itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided.
The District Court Rules made by the competent authority under the RTI Act
appears to bring in exemptions not provided for in the RTI Act and transgress the
exemptions envisaged by the Parliament under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Since the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, any move
which constricts it should be avoided. Even Parliament is very wary of the
restrictions it can place on the fundamental right of the citizen and hence

competent authorities would be well advised to ensure that they do not create any
exemptions which the lawmakers did not provide.”
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Appellant : Vipin Kumar
Respondent : Tis Hazari Court

Date of decision : 22.8.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)

Print Page

Patients have right to their medical records: CIC

New Delhi: Patients have a right to get their medical records from hospitals, both public and private, Central Information Commission has held while ordering disclosure of information to a former RAW official. 

Nisha Priya Bhatia, a former official of country's snooping agency Research and Analysis Wing, sought her medical records from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences where she was admitted on the orders of Delhi High Court. 

These records were refused to her as the Institute cited section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act which allows an authority to withhold information which would impede an investigation.

Print Page

Relative grading of officer's annual confidential reports during promotion held not to be personal information

The CIC has consistently held that the ACRs of an officer is in the nature of  personal   information   and   can   be   disclosed   only   to   him   and   to   none   else.  However, in the present case, the Appellant has not sought the copies of the  ACRs. She has only wanted to know the manner in which the DPC evaluated  and assessed the individual ACRs of the officers and arrived at the grading in  each case. The disclosure of the final relative grading will not help; without the  entire chart showing the complete assessment of every officer, it will not be  clear how the officers have been assessed in a related matrix. It is without  doubt that the relative grading of the ACRs is an important input in the final  

decision of the DPC in recommending some officers and not recommending  some   others.   As   held   by   us   in   several   similar   cases   in   the   past,   in   any  examination   or   evaluation   process,   certain   details   about   the   successful   or  recommended candidates must be disclosed in order to ensure transparency in  the selection process. Since the relative grading of the ACRs is the basis for  recommending a certain officer for promotion, this needs to be disclosed just as  the caste certificate of a public servant needs to be disclosed since that serves  as the basis for his appointment to the government service. Therefore, this no  longer remains personal information and should be disclosed as it forms the  very basis for the promotion of an individual officer.

Central Information Commission

Dr.Madhu Khare vs Union Public Service Commission on 5 October, 2012

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

Print Page