7-CIC Decisions

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission ordered Ahmadabad

Municipal Corporation to publish
reports on water quality.
 Consumer Education & Research Society & Ors. v Ahmadabad

Municipal Corporation & Ors. [Original Petition Nos.125 & 126 of
1994, 30 April 2008]
Would you disclose Annual Confidential
Reports of the requester?
What about the AC.R.s of other
employees?
Can RTI make transfers
more transparent?
Departmental Promotion Committees:
Can you access DPC minutes or

proceedings of DPC?
Can an employee seek reasons for denial
of promotion under the RTI Act?
Can a student access her evaluated answer
sheets?
Can she access her classmate’s evaluated
answer sheets?
Cut-off marks
Marks
Model answers
Scaling methodology
CIC 01.09.2006
CIC Full Bench 13.11.2006
Delhi High Court 17.04.2007
Delhi High Court
–Division Bench 03.09.2008
Supreme Court …
Would you disclose LTC files?
 Whether videography can be permitted.
 if an applicant wishes to make copies of records/
samples
 given to him for inspection at his own expenses, it is not
for the Public Authority to
 object to the form in which the copies are being made,
provided it is restricted to the information permissible
under the Act. There is no provision in the Act
 disallowing Videography, and therefore, cannot be
excluded unless it violates the
 parameters of any information sought and agreed to be
provided.
 [If the time limits could not be adhered to] the CPIO
could have taken the appellant into confidence and
kept him periodically posted with the progress
of the information gathering process.
 CIC/AT/A/2006/00031 -10,July,2006.
 Through this Order the Commission now wants to send
the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of
Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the
information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate
Authorities without giving any justification or grounds
as to how these
 provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and
clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate
information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of
the Act.
 CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 – 7 July,2006.
 If there was general confusion regarding the kind of
information that has been called for and that could
have been supplied , it could have been easily resolved
by a personal sitting between the appellant and the
respondents .
 CIC /WB/A/2006/00180 – 5 July,2006
 Jai Kumar Jain applied to Delhi Development Authority
(D.D.A) asking for information about the details of the
lease area of all the shops of the DDA market of sector 8,
in Hindi, as he has applied to the PIO in Hindi. Should
DDA provide the information in Hindi ?
 Yes. The CIC directed DDA to provide the requested
information in( translated into) Hindi within 25 days of
the issue of its decision.
 Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00117-
13 June,2006.
 In a case-'Records of the court martial trial' were
destroyed after a retention period of 10 years under
Army Rule 146. Information did not exist, it was
physically impossible to provide it. There is no liability
under RTIA of a public authority of supply non-existent
information.
 CIC/AT/A/2006/20 - 23 March,2006.
Paul Harper v. the information commissioner and Royal
mail plc.:
 A Royal Mail employee, had asked how often his
personal file had been requested during a
particular period. The Royal Mail explained that
the database which would have contained this
information was deleted periodically in order to
prevent system crashes and that the information
was no longer held at the time of his request.
 The Tribunal went on to consider what the position
would be if such deleted information could still be
retrieved from the computer. The FOI Act provides
a right of access to information which is "held" by a
public authority's such information still "held"?...
Continued…
 The Tribunal pointed out that information which

has been deleted from a computer, can usually still
be retrieved so long as it has not been overwritten
by new data. Retrieving the information will
sometimes be a relatively simple matter. In other
cases it might involve the use of specialized
techniques.
 This makes it clear that the test of how far to go in

attempting to retrieve deleted information
depends on the cost involved, rather that the form
in which the information Is held or the kind of
measures needed to recover it. …
Continued…
 Under the Act, authorities can refuse a request if the

cost of locating and retrieving information would be
more than 600 Pounds, in the case of a government
department, or 450 Pounds in the case of other
authorities. If the cost of retrieving deleted
information took these costs over the appropriate
limit, the request could be refused
 The Tribunal's decision suggests that the authority's

"intention" That data should be permanently
deleted, and this is not achieved only because the
technology will not permit it, does not affect the
decision on whether it is in fact held
 audit reports of cooperative societies should normally
have found place on the website of the Public Authority
as mandated u/s 4.
 CIC/WB/A/2006/00029 -20 July,2006

 Exemption provided to the organizations listed in the
second schedule is absolute in nature.
 CIC/AT/A/2006/00055 - 27 April,2006
 No .In one case -Order on appeal to the First appellate
authority was communicated to the requester under the
signature of PIO
 CIC Condemning the PIO’s action stated : PIO putting

himself in the shoes of Appellate authority, is against
the letter and spirit of the Act.
 CIC/OK/A/2006/00073 - 19 May, 2006.

 Considering the fact, that CPIO is punishable under
Section 20 of the Act with fine, it is necessary that
the decision taken by the CPIO is communicated
under his signature.
 Likewise, while disposing of an appeal, the
appellate authority discharges a quasi judicial
function and as such his decisions must bear his
signature to indicate that he has applied his mind in
taking the decision. The usual office procedure has
no place in the matters of RTI Act.
 42/ICPB/2006 – 3 July,2006.
 NO. Unnecessary disclosures of requester identities should
be avoided.
 An anonymous letter was received by the Canada
Information Commissioner, alleging improprieties within
Citizenship and Immigration of Canada in the processing of
access requests. The writer alleged widespread disclosure
within the department of the identities of access requesters.
Based on these allegations, the Information Commissioner
initiated a complaint on his own motion and commenced an
investigation.
 With respect to the issue of disclosure of requester
identities, the investigation determined that care was taken
by officials to disclose requester identities only to the
extent necessary to process the request.
 For example, officials in operating areas who are tasked to
find requested records are not informed of the requesters'
identities; neither are identities disclosed to senior officials
or the Minister's Office.
 (source: Office of the Information Commission of Canada,
Annual report 2005,2006)
 On the question of life and liberty, this Commission
has ruled as follows in Appeal no
CIC/WB/C/2006/00066 Of 19/4/2006,in Shekhar
Singh and Aruna Roy & Others Vs Prime Minister's
Office:
 "Matter to be treated as one of life and liberty would

require the following :
 The application be accompanied with substantive

evidence that a threat to life and liberty exists (e.g.
medical report)
Information :
 Citizens can ask for copies of documents containing the

information. But they can not seek opinions through a
questionnaire.
 CIC/OK/A/2006/00049 - 2 May, 2006.

 Kailash Mishra applied to BSNL Seeking information
about the project completed by switching and
installation with in high circle.
 BSNL wrote back of him asking to deposit Rs. 9810/-
which included Rs. 9732/- for the man hours utilized
to collect the information.
 CIC held: BSNL should have provided details of
computation since all the information was available
at one place, there was no reason for deployment of
extra man power for supplying the information
 CIC/PB/A/2006/00063-19,June,2006
 This Appellate authority is not covered under the
penalizing provisions of the Act. (But in this case)
he clearly failed to uphold the law or Act in the
public interest .This decision may be sent to [the
public authority] to consider disciplinary action
under their (service) rules.
 CIC/EB/C/2006/00040 - 24 April,2006.
 If the appellate officer fails to pass an order within 45
days of the appeal, it was construed as a deemed
refusal.
 CIC/WB/A/2006/00011-3 January,2006
 PIO is the information provider not the seeker of
information. There is no question of denial of
information. There is no provision in the RTIA to
consider such appeals or complaints by the PIO
herself against the order of an appellate officer.
 06/IC(A)/CIC/2006 - 3 March ,2006.

 Ramesh chand applied to NISCAIR (National
Institute of Science Communication and
Information) information on terms of conditions and
their implementation regarding a contract with
another firm.
 CIC held : A contract with a P.A is not 'confidential'
offer completion.
 Quotations, bid, tender, prior to conclusion of a
contract can be categorized as trade secret, but
once concluded, the confidentiality of such
transactions cannot be claimed. Any P.A claims
exemption must be put to strictest proof that
exemption is justifiably claimed. P.A was directed
to disclose the list of employees.
 CIC/WB/C/2006/00176-18 April,2006.
 On the question of disclosure of cabinet papers,
particularly when the action has been taken and the
matter is over, the contention of the CPIO and appellate
authority that section 8(1) (i) of the Act is applicable as
the matter is sub judice, is not tenable. The Act is clear
on this issue, which states that:
 “The material on the basis of which the decision were
taken shall be made public after the decision has been
taken, and the matter is complete, or over”.
 76/IC(A)/2006-3 July,2006.
 The RTI Act does not give a third party an automatic
veto on disclosure of information. PIO and A.O are
required to examine the third party's case in terms of
provisions of section 8(1)(j) or Section 11(1) as the case
may be and arrive at a finding by properly assessing
the facts and the circumstances of the case. A speaking
order should threafter be passed.
 CIC/AT/A/2006/00014-22 May,2006.
 If the information about who visits a police officer, specially police
officers dealing with crimes, is allowed to be disclosed, it will inevitably
lead to serious consequences for crime prevention and law-and-order
administration. While every visitor to a police officer dealing with crimes
may not be carrying information or offering his assistance for law
enforcement, it would be extremely difficult, even impossible, to isolate
such persons from the long list of daily visitors to the police crime offices. If
the Visitor’s Register of police officers dealing with crime is allowed to
become openly accessible, the information therein may not only
compromise the sources of information to the law enforcement officers, it
may even lead to the “visitors’” life being endangered by criminal elements.
Non-disclosure of the information about who visited whom as contained in the
visitor’s register at the police officer’s office premises is, therefore, an
imperative which is fully covered by the exemption under Section 8 (1)(g).
 CIC/AT/A/2005/0003-12 July,2006.
 Living Rivers involved a request by a local
environmental group for flood inundation maps for
Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, showing the
potential consequences if either dam failed.
 The Bureau of Land Reclamation provided an
affidavit from its Director of Security, Safety and Law
Enforcement (a position created after Sept. 11), in
which he referred to a dam failure as a “weapon of
mass destruction.” Even though the judge was
sympathetic to the government’s concerns, she
accepted Exemption 7(F), noting that the agency’s
“statements concerning risk assessment by
terrorists demonstrate that release of the maps
could increase the risk of an attack on the dams.”
 Living Rivers v United States Bureau of Reclamation ,
272F. supp.2d1313(D.utah 2003)
 Bloomberg, L.P. v. SEC, No 02-1582, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15111 (D.D.C.July 28, 2004) -- "agency records"; ruling
that former SEC chairman's appointment calendar was
a "personal record" because it was created for the
chairman's own use, contained business and personal
entries, was accessed only by the chairman, his chief of
staff, and his deputy chief of staff, and was not
circulated to others in the agency, even though it was
maintained on the agency's computer system.
 Bhagwan Chand Saxena asked for copies of the bio-
data submitted by four candidates at the time of their
appointment as Assistant Directors and also copies of
their medical reports submitted by the medical
authorities declaring these candidates as fit / unfit.
 CIC held that when a candidate submits his application
for appointment to a post under a P.A., the same
becomes a public document and he cannot object to
the disclosure on the ground of invasion of privacy and
directed the PIO to provide copies of the bio-data.
 As far as medical reports are concerned, they are
purely personal to the individuals and furnishing of the
copies of medical reports would amount to invasion of
privacy of the individuals and need not be furnished.
However PIO will disclose to the requester the
information whether all the four candidates had been
declared medically fit or not .
 Information relating to the tour programmes and travel
expenses of a public servant cannot be treated as
personal information.
 07/IC(A)/CIC/2006/00011 - 3 January 2006

 Income Tax Returns filed by an assessee are
confidential information which include details of
commercial activities and that it relates to third person.
These are submitted in fiduciary capacities. There is
no public action involved in the matter. Disclosure is
exempted under s.8(1)(j).
 22/IC(A)/2006 - 30 March.
Thank you.
Srinivas Madhav
shrinivasmadhav@gmail.com

7-CIC Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7-CIC Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7-CIC Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission ordered Ahmadabad

 Consumer Education & Research Society & Ors. v Ahmadabad

Can you access DPC minutes or

 The Tribunal pointed out that information which

 This makes it clear that the test of how far to go in

 Under the Act, authorities can refuse a request if the

 The Tribunal's decision suggests that the authority's

 CIC/WB/A/2006/00029 -20 July,2006

 CIC Condemning the PIO’s action stated : PIO putting

 CIC/OK/A/2006/00073 - 19 May, 2006.

 "Matter to be treated as one of life and liberty would

 The application be accompanied with substantive

 Citizens can ask for copies of documents containing the

 CIC/OK/A/2006/00049 - 2 May, 2006.

 06/IC(A)/CIC/2006 - 3 March ,2006.

 07/IC(A)/CIC/2006/00011 - 3 January 2006

You might also like