CIC DECISIONS

CHAPTER 9

Case Law by CIC and other Courts HC /SC

High court orders CIC not to pass orders without giving hearing to persons likely to be affected. [w.p. (c) 6833/2006 n.d.p.l. ….. Petitioner versus the Central Information commission]

The Central Information commission has asked public authorities to use their minds and judiciously apply exemption clauses and not to invoke them “lightly or frivolously”... Union home ministry refused to reveal a fax sent by it to the west Bengal government on handing over investigations into the Purulia arms-dropping case to the CBI, as “highly sensitive” .The commission observed that the message had not even been classified under the official secrets act.

The CIC received 3059 cases till 8th Sep 2006. Out of these, CIC claims to have disposed 1531 cases. But the website of CIC contains only 800 cases. The balance 731 cases were rejected without any hearing by the staff themselves. Cases have not been rejected by the CIC staff merely on technical grounds. They were rejected on substantive grounds also. For instance, P C Shekhar wanted to know the number of people who applied for VRS, after he did. His application was rejected, saying that he was seeking opinion and not information. Ajay goel’s application was not only rejected but he was also reprimanded for filing such application. Do the staff have the jurisdiction to reject cases and reprimand appellants? Can the Commissioner s delegate their judicial functions to their staff? These questions were raised by the people at the public hearing. So, out of 1531 cases disposed by the commission till 8th Sep 2006, 1084 cases i.e. 71% cases were disposed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Mr. Habibullah defended commission’s practice of not hearing appellants on three grounds that if they granted hearing in every case, it would slow down their disposal rate; that if they were giving a Judgement in favor of the appellant, there was no need to hear him; and that sometimes the case is so simple that it could be decided on the basis of records itself. Our analysis shows that not hearing an appellant increases workload rather than decreasing it. Almost every such appellant files a review petition, thus increasing commission’s workload. Mr. t s Krishnamurthy, former chief election Commissioner, suggested that perhaps all the Information Commissioners may like to undergo training in judicial processes by some retired Supreme Court judges.

Penalty: of the 1531 cases disposed by the commission so far, penalties have been imposed only in two cases. CIC refused to impose penalties even in very gross violations of RTI act also.

Many cases of out of turn disposals have come to light. Date of filing appeal at CIC date of hearing Dr Suresh 29.12.05 2.8.06; R K Gupta 19.4.06 15.5.06; R P Jain 16.2.06 1.9.06; Piyush Mohapatra 20.3.06 30.5.06

Many cases have been dismissed on the ground that Information asked for was fiduciary in nature. Some instances: 1. someone applied for a petrol pump. He did not get it. He asked for the manner in which the interview board had evaluated the applicants and how much marks did each one get. This Information was refused saying that the relationship between the interview board and HPCL was fiduciary. 2. The relationship between examiner and board of examination has also been declared as fiduciary. 3. Relationship between government employee and government has also been termed as fiduciary. 4. Every citizen files his income tax return to the government in his fiduciary capacity. There are some relationships, which have been universally recognized as fiduciary like that of a doctor and a patient, advocate and client, banker and constituent.

Many appeals had been dismissed on the ground that the Information sought was private and had no public interest. He filed an application asking for the status of his own application. It was rejected saying that this was private Information and had no public interest. Firstly, private Information can be denied only if it violates the privacy of an individual. My own Information cannot violate the privacy of any other individual.

Summary of recommendations, which emerged during the public hearing of applicants and activists by the CIC Habibullah were [ nana hazare present] held on 24th sep 2005:

Opportunity of being heard should be given to both parties in every case. It is up to the party to decide whether they wish to be physically present or send their written comments or decide not to avail of the opportunity.

No case should be closed, just by ordering that Information be provided in the next 15 days etc. In most of the cases, it has been seen that the PIO does not comply with such an order. As a result, the appellant has to again approach the commission and again wait for 7 months for his/her turn to come. Therefore, after passing an order, the case should be adjourned, and not closed. On the next hearing, if the appellant confirms having received Information to his/her satisfaction, only then should a case be closed. This is the practice which is being successfully followed by public grievance commission in Delhi for the last five years and also by state Information commission of up.

The Information Commissioner s should undergo training in judicial processes from some retired Supreme Court judges.

Penalty should be imposed in every case of violation by government officials. Else RTI would soon be dead

Some guidelines should be made on the terms like “fiduciary”, “private information” and “public interest”, which should be uniformly adhered to by all the Commissioner s.

Appeal number should be given to every appellant/ complainant and it should be communicated to him within 24 hours of receipt of his appeal/complaint. Within the next 24 hours, it should be put up on the website. Status of every appeal should be provided on the website, even if it is treated as inadmissible ab-initio.

No case should be taken up on out of turn basis, unless there is some grave public interest involved, which should be mentioned in the order.

There should be a public hearing every three months, which should be attended by all Commissioners.

para wise answers to questions would satisfy the CIC norms irrespective of whether the applicant is satisfied with the Information thus provided] quality is thus not the criterion]

We find that in case of evaluated answer papers the Information available with the public authority is, in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt u/s 8(1)(e). In addition, when a candidate seeks for a copy of the evaluated answer paper, either of his/her own or others, it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this has been covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the act…”

Thirty-eight residents of east Delhi filed individual RTI applications seeking status of the daily progress made on their complaints to the DDA. On not receiving any response within the time limit specified, the applicants filed first appeals. Again, no response was received. The applicants then filed a second appeal in the CIC. DDA did not show up for six months. CPIO turned up on the next date. CIC dropped the penalty. The only action that CPIO had taken was to transfer all the cases to the education department, whereas the applications pertained to him and he was supposed to provide information.

Forty residents from east Delhi made individual requests for Information to the deputy director education (east) on 1.12.05 on the issue of admission of students from economically weaker section to public schools. Many of them did not receive any response in 30 days. First appeal was filed on 18.01.06. The applicants were invited to the first appeal hearing on 10.02.06. The appellate authority observed that Information had been provided to the satisfaction of appellants, which was blatantly wrong. A second appeal was filed on 6.03.06 with the CIC. CIC scheduled a hearing on 23.03.06. The PIO was directed to provide Information in 15 days and was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be penalized for not providing Information within 30 days. The CIC also ordered that the government of NCT would examine if there were any suspicions of venality in admission warranting an enquiry by the CBI. To date no response has been received. In the meanwhile, Mr. Habibullah dropped the penalty, when CPIO met him in his chamber and pleaded mercy. This order of dropping penalty is also not there on CIC’S website. When people came to know that Mr. Habibullah has dropped penalties, they filed a review petition.

Mrs. Bina Popli is a widow of a former senior inspector in CSO, department of statistics. She applied for Information seeking copies of documents in the personal file of her late husband Shri Popli. On not receiving a response even after the lapse of 45 days, she applied for inspection of files. No response. Her first appeal was dismissed on the ground, “personal file of late Joginder Singh Popli is not traceable in this office, as this is a 20 year old case…The CPIO /AA had in fact lied to the applicant. However, the CIC refused to impose penalty.

Sunita Vs Reserve Bank of India [19.06.06] some employees of Gurgaon Gramin Bank fraudulently withdrew money from the account of a housewife, Mrs. Sunita. She complained to RBI and also filed a criminal complaint. Later, she filed an RTI application in RBI asking for action taken on her complaint. RBI rejected her request. When she appealed to CIC, CIC rejected her request saying that relationship between RBI and Gramin bank was fiduciary: “…the matter relates to the complaint of the appellant about the alleged unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the saving account of the appellant in Gurgaon Gramin Bank. The appellant has stated that she has filed a case in the court and she wanted to file the reply of the reserve bank in the court…” CIC ruled “…in the instant case, file notings in possession of RBI is furnished by the Gramin bank (third party) in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the exemption u/s 8(1) (e) has been correctly applied by the public authority.”

Dr. K H Jambhulkar Vs HPCL [31.08.06] in response to an advertisement by the HPCL for retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership at Nandanvan, Nagpur, under freedom fighters’ category, the appellant had applied and was finally unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the decision of the HPCL, he sought a copy of the application and their related documents submitted by the first empanelled candidate. While part of the Information was furnished the other part was denied on the ground that the Information sought pertain to third party, the disclosure of which does not fall under the public domain u/s 8(1)(d) &(j) of the act. The commission ruled that “the marks awarded by the panel experts to each candidate under different parameters are of confidential nature and this act has been carried out by them in fiduciary capacity, which is exempt u/s 8(1) (e).

Bhagwan Chand Saxena vs. Safdarjung Hospital [03.04.06] & epic [13.04.06] the appellant sought for a certified copy of medical certificate issued in respect of one Sh. Jaipalan who had been allegedly appointed as assistant director in ministry of commerce even though he was declared as medically unfit. CIC ruled, “Disclosure of medical reports of any citizen would amount to invasion of his privacy.”

In several cases, people have asked for annual property returns of officers. These have been denied saying that this is personal information.

Mahender Kumar vs. NABARD [26.07.06] the appellant asked for Information on the number of vigilance cases pending enquiry. It was held that “the appellant, who is an officer in NABARD, has sought Information related to administrative issues within the bank, through various correspondences. “ CPIO denied Information saying that there was no public interest CIC held “there is no denial of information. “

A. X. S. Jiwan vs. Commissioner Central excise [29.03.06] “in the present case Information seeker has asked several questions expecting the CPIO to reply in “yes” or “no”, which the CPIO ought not to do.”

While directing the Indian Red Cross Society, ludhiana, to furnish Information relating to its accounting system to the appellant, the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) ruled that the Right to Information act was applicable to the society as it had been established by a law made by parliament.

New Delhi, aug. 12: the Central Information commission has taken strong objection to the allegations of harassment and misbehaviour by the government officials when people have gone to file their applications under the Right to Information act. Mr. Prem of Lal gumbad complained that on January 12 he sought some Information from the deputy Commissioner (south), MCD regarding safai karamcharies employed in lal gumbad, Panchshil Park where he lives. Before he obtained the information, some persons from the MCD visited his house and threatened him with dire consequences if he persisted with his request and that he should not again ask for information.

The Central Information commission has directed the centre to produce in a sealed cover the letters exchanged between the former President K.R. Narayanan and the former Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee on the 2002 Gujarat riots. It wants to peruse the letters to decide whether or not to make them public. The commission passed this interim order on an appeal filed by c. Ramesh of Vellore in Tamilnadu seeking a direction to the government to disclose the correspondence. Government stand the government took the stand that the entire correspondence between Narayanan and Mr. Vajpayee, protected under article 74 2), was exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information act (RIA) and the constitution. The decision not to disclose the Information was taken with the utmost responsibility. His correspondence was exchanged during a critical time in a state and any disclosure would result in damage to the public interest. Rejecting this contention, the commission, quoting Supreme Court decisions, said: “it may be inferred that articles 74 (2), 78 and 361 do not per se entitle the public authorities to claim “privilege” from disclosure. Now since the RIA has come into force, whatever immunity from disclosure the state could have claimed under the law, stands virtually extinguished except on the ground explicitly mentioned under section 8 and in some cases under section 11 of the RIA.” The commission said: “it is difficult to understand on what grounds the Information has been denied. It is also difficult to comprehend how the disclosure of the Information is going to affect the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state. It appears that the denial has been communicated in a mechanical manner. “prima facie, the correspondence involves a sensitive matter of public interest. The sensitivity of the matter and involvement of a larger public interest have also been admitted by all concerned including the appellant. We consider it appropriate that before taking a final decision on this appeal, we should personally examine the documents to decide whether the larger public interest would require their disclosure or not.” Only then would the commission issue appropriate directions to the public authority. It directed the public authority to produce the documents on august 22 through a senior officer, who would be present during the perusal and would thereafter seal and take them back.

A day after filing an application under the Right to Information act at the ministry of urban development for non-allotment of official residence, Information Commissioner o.P. Kejriwal got a house allotted to him. Mr Kejriwal was Not allotted an official residence since the last nine months after he took charge as Information Commissioner

Many people who went to file their applications for delay of issue of passports were instead handed over their passports instead of accepting their applications

The Central Information commission has turned down the demand of the former law minister, Arun Jaitley, for a direction to the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) to make available to him all documents connected with Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, accused in the Bofors payoff case. In its order, the commission said: “in the instant case, the Information sought huge and available in a large number of files, housed in two large rooms and kept n several cupboards under the custody of the CBI .Any attempt to compile the voluminous information, so as to comply with the request of the appellant, may disproportionately divert the public resources, which is not permissible.” On the documents relating to the freezing and de-freezing of Mr. Quattrocchi’s bank accounts by the order of the queen’s High Court, the commission said the CBI admitted that the matter was pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court (coming up for hearing on august 21), the Delhi High Court and the chief metropolitan magistrate court, Delhi . Also, the investigation was still in progress, and a red corner notice issued by Interpol and a non-bailable warrant issued by the special judge, Delhi, were still in force. As the courts were duly seized of the matter, there was every hope and possibility that public interest, in general, and national interest, in particular, would surely be taken care of. The Information sought was covered under the exemption category as they were “privileged documents,” the order said, rejecting Mr. Jaitley’s plea. “the CBI has been investigating the case for nearly 16 years without much success. Though the CBI has claimed exemptions from disclosure of the Information on valid grounds, these exemptions would not be available after the expiry of 20 years of such public actions under the provisions of the act”.

The CIC agreed that the RTI act does not mandate that a request for seeking any Information from a government organisation has to be made out in a prescribed form. It can just as well be written down on a plain sheet. But, at the same time, the CIC held that DDA or any other government body was free to issue forms for the purpose. Allowing each organisation to have its own form, creates another bureaucratic hurdle.

“the Information act is a vital tool in the hands of the general public and the greatest disadvantage that the government faces now is the clause that does not allow it to ask the seeker of Information his requirement for the information. The officer providing the Information does not know what he will do with the Information at hand and it is this power of the unknown that gives added edge to its users,” said chief Information Commissioner wajahat Habibullah.

The applicant, Mahendra Gaur, had submitted an application to the Rashtrapati Bhawan’s secretariat on march 1 this year seeking to know the status of the complaint he had made to the president against the then chairman of the Indian Oil Corporation. However, it was alleged that Ashish Kalia, public Information officer (PIO) of he president’s secretariat, refused to accept gaur’s application and instead directed that he approach the IOC directly for redressal of his grievance. Following this, gaur moved the CIC seeking a direction to the president’s secretariat to furnish him the required information. The commission held that under section 6 (3) of the RTI, the public authority to which the application is made, shall transfer the application or such part which may be appropriate to that other public authority which either holds the Information or is more closely connected with the subject matter of the application. It was pointed out by the CIC that no transfer has in fact been made by the PIO of the secretariat who simply advised the applicant to approach the PIO of the ministry of petroleum & natural gas.

Breaching the confidentiality of the union cabinet for the first time, the Central Information commission (CIC) has allowed an appellant access to cabinet papers and communication between the Central vigilance commission (CVC) and CBI . From the department of personnel and training (DOPT) regarding the appointment of MTNLS CMD.

The Central Information commission (CIC) discouraged the misuse of Right to Information (RTI) act by saying that citizens have the right to access government documents under the act, but they cannot force officials to give further explanation on the Information obtained. “once an applicant has been provided access to the information, he cannot ask the public authority questions about the who and the why of those documents,” the CIC said, while dismissing the appeal of one Mr. Madal Lal Mirg who had come to the commission on an appeal concerning the home ministry. Though Mr. Mirg had received orders to allow him access to all documents and files he had asked for from the Central public Information officer (PIO), he later came up with 38 questions in respect of the documents he had already seen and of which he had made copies. The commission agreed with the CPIO and home ministry officials’ position hat the Information sought by the appellant was in the nature of seeking opinion and advice of the department in respect of the files and documents he has already perused. “a perusal of the 38-point query made by the appellant makes it clear that he as been asking the public authority to further dilate on the Information which is already in his hands,” the Information Commissioner s said. According to them, the appellant or an Information seeker cannot use the resources of public authority to build up an arguable case for himself which can then be put up before a legal forum. “what we notice is that the appellant wants to make the department do all the research work for him and hand over to him a completed case on the basis of which he can proceed to seek appropriate relief from courts. This does not fall within the ambit of the RTI,” the Information Commissioner s added.

Complainant Kailash Mishra of Bhopal had applied to public Information officer(PIO), BSNL recently for some Information about the projects completed by its switching and installation wing in Bhopal circle. BSNL asked him to deposit Rs 9810 which included rs 9732 for the man hours utilized to collect the Information to e supplied. The first appellate authority to whom Mr Mishra applied on February 20, 2006 communicated to him on march 18 that the additional fee was justified. Thereafter, he filed an appeal with this commission, stating that as far as he knew all the Information he had requested for was available at the circle office of the department at Bhopal. After pursuing the provisions of section 7 of the RTI act and the fee rules prescribed there under, a bench comprising dr. O.p. Kejriwal and dr. M.M. Ansari concluded that such action of the department was only a subterfuge for avoiding supply of Information to the appellant. ”since all the Information was available at one place, there was no reason for deployment of extra manpower for supplying the information.” It also regretted that the BSNL had not responded to the appellant’s request for providing details of computation whereby the department had arrived at the above figure. The commission ordered the respondent to show all the files/records relating to the Information asked for and provide the complainant copies of the documents he desired at the fee prescribed under the act. ”there was no doubt in the commission’s mind that calculating and demanding the fee from the applicant showed an utter disregard or the letter and spirit of the act and was obviously a malafide attempt on the part of CPIO , BSNL for denial of information,” the bench said.

Vimal Kishor, an employee of the Patna branch of the NABARD, had filed a complaint with the CIC alleging that the cvc was refusing to furnish him Information pertaining to a departmental inquiry launched against him. According to kishor, he filed a request under the RTI act to the CVC director l ahuja to provide him the required Information to prove his innocence in the case. File missing however, it was alleged that Ahuja initially claimed that the file was missing and later stated that he needed concurrence of the Central vigilance officer of NABARD to part with the information. But even four months after the request the CVC failed to comply, following which kishor moved the CIC. The CIC hold Ahuja guilty of violating the provisions of the act by not furnishing the Information within the stipulated 30 days.

Earlier the treatment was free at AIIMS. Lakhs of poor people from across the country used to come to AIIMS daily to get treatment. However, recently, AIIMS decided not to provide any free treatment and charge fee on actual cost basis, which suddenly made the treatment at AIIMS very expensive. One newspaper reported that this decision was taken at AIIMS without going through the prescribed process. I filed an RTI on 5.12.05 to inspect all the files through which this decision was taken. My application contained 18 questions, some of which were innocuous like copy of AIIMS act, objectives of AIIMS etc.2. I received no reply in 55 days.3. I filed first appeal on 1.2.06. I did not receive any reply to my appeal. But i received a letter dated 2.2.06 asking me to come for inspection on 6.2.06. When i went for inspection, i was shown records related to 8 questions out of 18 asked by me. However, none of the files related to user charges were shown to me. They just showed me a copy of AIIMS act, objectives of AIIMS etc.4. I filed my objection on the spot. After inspecting whatever records were shown to me, i requested copies of some of them. I received a letter dated 28.2.06 asking me to deposit certain fee. However, according to sec 7(6), no fee can be charged if the public authority fails to provide Information within the time limits specified in the act. So, i demanded that i should be provided Information free of charge.5. I filed second appeal in march 2006. The commission sought comments from AIIMS, who informed the commission that they had shown me all the records and had asked me to deposit fee but since i did not deposit fee, they could not provide information.6. Obviously, AIIMS misled the commission because they showed me records related to only 8 questions. And that the fee should not have been charged as per sec 7(6). I had already mentioned these details in my appeal. 7. Based on the reply filed by AIIMS, Mrs. Padma has disposed off my appeal, without giving any hearing or listening to me. She has asked me to file first appeal again. I had already filed first appeal, for which i did not get any response.

All the following judgements are clearly in violation of the provisions of RTI act 2005.

# the process of petrol pump allotments is always mired in corruption. Manish dnyaneshwar applied for a petrol pump. He did not get it. Under RTI act, he asked for copies of all applications and marks given by interview board to each applicant. Mr ansari ruled that such Information couldn’t be provided, as it would violate the privacy of the interview board and the applicants.

# one often hears that corruption and nepotism guide promotions within the government. Tapas dutta wanted copy of minutes of meeting of departmental promotion committee in one of the government departments. CIC ruled it could not be made public as it would violate the privacy of candidates.

# government officer faced corruption charges. But no action was taken against him. Ravi Kumar wanted to know whether the government proposed to take any action against that officer, CIC denied even this information.

# in a completely bizarre Judgement, in the case of Axs Jiwan, Ansari ruled that one cannot ask for any information, which could be replied in “yes” or “no”. In another case, ansari ruled that you cannot ask any questions which started with “why”, “when”, “whether” etc.

# in one case, ansari laid down a new rule, “the expected benefits from disclosure of Information should invariably outweigh the costs of providing it.” This is nowhere written in the act which was passed by the parliament.

Two requests summarized as requests for the following documents from NIC and Karnataka Govt :1. Requests from the departments 2. Communications taken place between the departments and NIC 3. Receipts issued against receipt of payments by NIC to various departments 4. Cost details for the development 5. Cost details of maintenance 6. Requirement specifications 7. Features of the software developed 8. Letters written to various departments of Govt of Karnataka about the pending payments. In response to my requests for the above documents, the CPIO has intimated the following to me: under the section 8(d) of RTI act, the development of website, web based applications are considered as software related work. This type of work is covered under intellectual property rights and commercial confidence, which can not be disclosed (specially because you are a software developer yourself). In my grounds of first appeal i stated the following three points: 1. I sincerely believe based on the copyright act that these documents can't carry any intellectual property rights as there can't be any patents granted for these documents for the simple reason that, these documents are in no way could be considered as invention. 2. The PIO has not substantiated his claim that the documents sought by me are covered under intellectual property rights and commercial confidence. 3. Thus, the statement of the PIO that these fall under intellectual property and can't be spared particularly to me only proves that, he is not against sharing the documents with any one else but he is against sharing the same with me with his malafide intention which is against the spirit of the Right to Information act 2005 and against equal rights amongst equals. The appellate authority has intimated the following : i am to inform you that your case has been once again examined and the reply from sh. B. V. Sarma, SIO, Karnataka state unit as given by vide letter no. 7(147)/2005-ksu/sio/1871 dt.31.12.2005 is found to be in order. further regarding other issues raised by you, i am to clarify that : NIC being pure it promotional outfit of Govt of India, hence no trading is involved by NIC in serving the state government related matters. Decision of the Central Information commission. According to them, the appellant himself is a vendor and all software development done in NIC and related Information is IPR work of NIC and cannot be shared with any vendor who is its competitor. They also produced a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Karnataka government from which we find that NIC has undertaken to respect Information propriety to various state departments and to provide all mutually agreed safeguards. Having heard the representative of the public authority and going through the material placed before us, we are convinced that the CPIO has correctly applied the provisions of section 8(1)(d) to decline to provide the Information sought for by the appellant and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

A Mumbai citizen was denied Information under the Right to Information (RTI) act because he had made the application in his position as honorary secretary of a co-operative housing society. He was told by the Central Information commission (CIC) that as per section 3 f the RTI, which says that ‘all citizens shall have the right to information’, only queries from individuals can be entertained. Powai resident shashi Kumar Nanda described the ruling as ‘unfair and Illogical’. [section 3 of the RTI says that ‘all citizens shall have the Right to Information ’ subject to the provisions of this act. The act is silent on the right of societies, associations, groups and institutions to information.]

Ic ansari : ‘i can easily make out from the perusal of papers submitted to us. One cannot ask for Information that are clearly barred under the act and that without establishing the case for human rights violations or corruption. One should not feel shy in making the case, if any.’’ ”you are not alone who are in the garb of public interest seeking personal or confidential or third party Information for promotion of personal interests” “people are misusing the act. We’ve identified a number of appellants who frequent the commission to get Information for vested interest,[ with a motive to blackmail public sector units (PSUS).]” 1. P k Sharma of panchkula, haryana sought access to certain bank accounts that had been reported to the Central vigilance commission and the Central bureau of investigation. The CIC disallowed the appeal saying that the Information was about a third party.; 2.N Anbarasan, a software vendor based in Bangalore, wanted Information about a website run by NIC Bangalore. However, NIC said he was a competitor. The Central Information commission (CIC) found this to be true and denied his appeal.;3. Appellant was running over 40 websites and had filed about 30 cases against PSUS, which did not advertise on his websites. The appellant blackmailed the PSUS by asking for details of use of their guest houses, foreign travel of their officials, their cars and other expenses.;4. An overwhelming majority of the appeals pertained to denial of employment, promotions, contracts, tenders or sought details of rival business groups or cases lodged with anti-corruption agencies. There are also the cases of surrogate appeals.

The Central Information commission (CIC) has ruled that a contract with a public authority cannot be categorised as confidential. In case of "quotations, bid or tender or any other Information prior to conclusion of a contract, it could be categorised as trade secret, but once concluded the confidentiality of such transactions cannot be claimed". The commission has directed the national institute of science communication and Information (NISCAIR) to furnish Information sought by an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) act. The appellant, Ramesh Chand Sai, had sought from NISCAIR details of a contract with a firm, deep security services, and the employees deployed by the firm.

Pratap Singh Gandas complained in his appeal to the commission that he had been filing complaints or petitions to the police since 2003 to bring to their notice a range of illegal acts. On October 31, 2005, Gandas submitted to deputy Commissioner of police Ravindra Singh a list of 144 petitions filed by him and desired to know what action was taken on them. In respect of 84 cases, the DCP'S reply stated "not substantiated". In 58 cases the reply was "filed" and in two cases, the official said "record being destroyed over three years". The DCP'S reply was upheld by the department's appellate authority and joint Commissioner of police Bhim Sain Bassi, following which Gandas complained to the commission and claimed the replies given to him were "evasive" and "perfunctory". However, the commission felt police authorities had given Gandas their conclusions about each of the cases. "the RTI act cannot be used to make a public authority to do certain things or take certain decisions. It can be invoked only for access to permissible information," chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Information Commissioner A N Tiwari observed in their ruling.

An association or a company is not and cannot be treated as a citizen even though it may have been registered or incorporated in the country. A natural born person can only be a citizen of India under the provisions of part-ii of the constitution. Section 3 of the Right to Information act, 2005 gives the Right to Information to all citizens. Thus, it is quite clear that a person who is not a citizen cannot claim this right. The issue is decided accordingly. The appellant has submitted the application under the Right to Information act, 2005 in his individual capacity, signing no doubt as president of his association, but not for a separate entity. Requested Information has been furnished to the applicant by the CPIO S, deputy director, directorate of estates and executive engineer (headquarters) CPWD vide letters dated 17th and 19th January, 2006, copies whereof have been annexed at 3 annexure ‘f’ and ‘g’ of the appeal. The appellate authority also in its order dated 17.1.2006 has stated that the applicant can still seek the Information in his individual capacity as a citizen. Although the act guarantees Right to Information only to a citizen, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking Information on behalf of other members of the association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate. The basic objective of the act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right recognized by other CPIO S in the ambit of the same ministry of urban development. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide the requested information. Since delay has taken place, albeit, without any fault from the side of CPIO /AA, the Information may be given free of charge.

A 70-year-old woman from Haryana has used the Right to Information act to gain access to file notings regarding the pension and other benefits of her son, a Delhi traffic police constable who was killed in a road accident over five years ago. Laxmi devi of Bhiwani district in Haryana had appealed to the Central Information commission (CIC) for gaining access to file notings made by authorities on her son’s dossier regarding the payment of terminal benefits totaling about Rs four lakh and his family pension. The CIC’s ruling giving her access comes amidst a controversy over a government proposal to amend the RTI act to prevent the public from viewing most file notings. The septuagenarian, who was entirely dependent on her son Anoop Singh, was left penniless after his death on January 29, 2001 as her daughter-in-law Mamta, who received all the benefits and was drawing the family pension, re-married in august 2005, her petition said. The benefits were stopped following Mamta’s re-marriage. This was despite the fact that Laxmi Devi was listed as the legal nominee of her son in his records from the date of his death to December two last year, the petition said. “the appellant’s (Laxmi Devi) interest is direct and legitimate. Documents connected with pension settlement and terminal benefits of her deceased son may be accessed by her,” the CIC said in its order dated July 13, 2006. The commission allowed Laxmi Devi to access a letter written by Mamta to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, asking him to stop the family pension following her re-marriage.

The Central Information commission has ruled that the process of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts need not be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI ) act.’ was in the nature of “personal Information provided by a third party” and exempted under section 11 (1) of the RTI act. Disclosing such Information violated the fiduciary relationship as well as the confidence and trust between the candidates and the Supreme Court, and was exempted from disclosure by section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act.’

The commission came to the conclusion that prima facie the CISCE is not covered by the definition of a public body since it is neither funded nor controlled by the government or any other public body. However, going by the definition of the term Information under section 2(f) of the RTI act, which includes ‘Information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force’. The respondents are thus directed to obtain the Information from the CISCE within 15 days and supply it to the appellant within 21 days of the issue of this order.

Four years after former finance minister Yashwant Sinha slapped a defamation case against industrialist sr Jindal, the case has shot to limelight again the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the ministry of finance to allow the appellant access to file notings related to the case. The former union minister had filed a criminal complaint against the chairman and managing director of Jindal Aluminium Ltd, sr Jindal, for allegedly defaming him by making statements in July 2001 accusing him of favouring the rival Aluminium Giant, Hindal Co. Following this, Jindal Aluminium V-p Alok Gupta submitted an application under the Right to Information (RTI ) and sought inspection of the file related to the case, notes and the total expenditure incurred by the government on the case. Some Information was given to him but file notings related to the case were denied.

other CIC decisions:

Reasons for rejecting the tender has to be made known.

income tax return is in the nature personal information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual

In a single public authority there can be no transfer of application.

Where the Information is not available in the particular form requested, the applicant may be allowed if he desires to inspect the documents

(a) copy of the notification for recruitment (b) recruitment & promotion policy (c) panel of names of interviewees and merit list (d) copy of recommendations of selection committee and its approval --- be given

PAN no. is personal Information and may not be given.

(a) certified copy of the statement (paid copy) (b) certified copy of completed tour itinerary (c) details of meetings attended during the tour--- be given

There is no question of denial of Information if a public authority is prepared to provide the documents, in the form in which it is available with them.

Noting in the despatch register showing the despatch of reply / intimation is not enough. There has to be actual receipt.

Bank account details are not to be disclosed to others.

RTI act cannot be confused with an instrument for grievance redressal, although the Information obtained can be used for this purpose.

if Information is not available in electronic form, it need not be created.

The assessment reports by the superior officers are personal and confidential Information and therefore exempt under section 8(1)(j).

If the Information seeker asks several questions expecting the CPIO to reply in yes or no, the CPIO ought not do so.

If there is already a provision for seeking Information , the applicant can be advised to obtain the Information accordingly. There is no question of denial of Information in this case.

tax assessment is a public action and there is no reason why such orders should not be disclosed.

Bio-data submitted in the application for appointment is a public document and can be made available.

However, medical reports are purely personal to the individuals and can be denied.

at the appeal stage, an applicant cannot ask for additional information

The appellate authority is right in advising the appellant to give specific details about the Information / documents sought from the CPIO .

the cost effectiveness aspect of disclosure of Information ought to be kept in mind.

Information relating to donations, expenditure on transport and salary drawn by the staff can be disclosed.

Information relating to future course of action which is not in any material form is not Information within the definition of Information in section 2(f).

inspection of records when the process of recruitment is at the interim stage cannot be entertained.

The personal assessment forms submitted by the staff to the employer in fiduciary relationship cannot be shared.

The views recorded in confidence by the peers on the matter of performance appraisal may not be disclosed , since it mat lead to personal acrimony

Applicant’s entitlement for Information is only in respect of categories of Information mentioned in section 2(f).

It is not open to an applicant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, question to the public authority about the nature and quality of their action.

The RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries with prefixes ,such as why, when, what and whether.

Disclosure of Information i.e agreed list would defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of preparation of agreed list.

Keeping some body’s name in the agreed list and rewarding him with promotion and higher postings, albeit to non-sensitive post ,on the other are contradictory.

There is no reason why the names of officers who were promoted or placed in sensitive positions while they were concurrently under discreet watch i.e “agreed list” should not be disclosed.

Conduct of examinations and for identifying and short listing the candidates in terms of technical competence right attitude ,etc is a highly confidential activity. Therefore, answer-sheets should not be disclosed .

The award of marks need not be kept secret.

True copies of the mark sheets of the successful candidates may be supplied.

The onus for timely despatch of replies to the applicant lies on the CPIO alone under section 7(1) of the act.

If found disproportionately diverting resources of a public authority, Information can be denied in the form requested but has nevertheless to be made available in any other convenient form.

Appellant Shri S.C.Sharma requested for a copy of the order, in which the union home secretary had authorised the special secretary home to take action under section 5(2) of the telegraph act. The Information was denied on the ground of being harmful to the security, integrity and sovereignty of India section 8(1) (a). CIC- authorisation by the union home secretary to specific agencies to intercept telephones would not qualify to attract the exemption under section 8(1)(a)

From the stand-point of technicality of the RTI act, the role of APIO is limited to only to receiving applications for Information and appeals and transmitting the same to the proper CPIO .The CIC does not see any legal difficulty in the CPIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision. .This would not lead to any miscarriage of justice or place any undue restriction on an Information seeker’s rights under RTI act. It is, however, cautioned that any order issued by the APIO on behalf of CPIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of the latter, and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the APIO might be acting;

The appellant sought for specific reasons for denial of promotion and benefits of ACP; CIC- CPIO was directed to ascertain from the minutes of the DPC as well as the screening committee whether any specific reason has been indicated in the minutes regarding the appellant and communicate the same to him within 15 days.

The appellant sought for the details of the academic and technical qualifications mentioned in the service book, of certain working and retired employees; It was denied on the ground of being personal information; CIC- it is rather surprising that CPIO and the appellate authority should have taken the view that details of the qualification of govt. Officials is personal in nature and as such cannot be supplied; It is the right of every citizen to know about the qualifications of public servants and posts held by them, Further even the format in which the appellant has sought for the Information is so simple that the same would not attract the provisions of section 7(9) of the RTI act.

The appellant sought for various Information like the address, the dates of and posts from which postal officials had retired, the amount of pension paid for more than 10 years, CPIO rejected the Information applying the provisions of section 8(1)(i). Upheld by the CIC

The appellant sought Information regarding the income tax return of certain firm; The CPIO informed the appellant that the Information relates to third party and the documents could be given after the necessary concurrence of third party as per the act; Third party objected to the disclosure which was not accepted by the CPIO and the third party was accordingly informed and advised to appeal; CIC ruled income tax returns relates to personal Information ,submitted in fiduciary capacity, and cannot be disclosed without the concurrence of third party.

* * *