(THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THIS COMMUNICATION AND ENCLOSURE THERETO IS ATTACHED IN A COMBINED 23-PAGES FILE WITH THIS MAIL FOR DOWNLOADING AND PRINTING FOR FURTHER PROCESSING IT)
No provisions exists to deny information on grounds that it disproportionately divert the resources
07 December 2014
THROUGH E-MAIL
Chief Information Commissioners of
- Central Information Commissions, New Delhi
- All State Information Commissions In India
Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training GOI
New Delhi
Landmark decision
No provisions exists to deny information
on grounds that it disproportionately
divert the resources
Hon'ble Sirs,
Under Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the Public Authority can deny information in a particular form but it cannot refuse totally. Section 7(9) does not even confer any discretion on a public authority to withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclosure. It only gives discretion to the public authority to provide the information in a form other than the form in which the information is sought for, if the form in which it is sought for would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
Hon'ble Kerala High Court in TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006], with regard to Sec 7(9) of Right to Information Act 2005, (copy attached as Annexture-1) had observed :
"In fact there is no provision in the Act to deny information on the ground that the supply of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority……"
Taking recourse of the above Kerala High Court judgement, the Central Information Commission[1], therefore, issued Show Cause Notice to the CPIO for wrongly denying the information by citing Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act 2005. The decisions can be read from here! (Copy attached as Annexture-2).
The commission observed that:
The Commission observes that the CPIO cannot take protection of section 7(9) without any basis thereof. Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Public Authority can deny information in a particular form but it cannot refuse totally. The said subsection does not provide additional ground for denial of information. If section 7(9) applies to the ton text, the respondent authority has to give information in the same form as available. ....
....(THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THIS COMMUNICATION AND ENCLOSURE THERETO IS ATTACHED IN A COMBINED 23-PAGES FILE WITH THIS MAIL FOR DOWNLOADING AND PRINTING FOR FURTHER PROCESSING IT)
In this connection the position taken in this regard ("Equality before Law") in RTIFED earlier communication under Reference No. RTIFED/Format-for-RTI Replies/2014/1103 of 13 November 2014 on the subject line "Order of FAA Illegal if Appellant not heard" may also please be referred to, where in a detailed case has been made out for the "Equality before Law". A copy of the same is attached as Annexure-3 for your ready reference and record.
DoPT needs to take cognizance of this decision of the Kerala High Court, as was taken vide its OM/Circular No. 1/31/2013-IR of 08 January 2014 on the Order dated 20.11.2013 of the High Court of Kolkata pronounced in Writ Petition No. 33290 of 2013 in the Case of Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs Union of India regarding Personal details of RTI applications, to ensure the uniformity of the decision making process in the different information commissions by the various Information Commissioners (copy attached as Annexture-4).
It is therefore requested that dignity of 'Right of Information' bestowed to the citizen of India through Right to Information Act 2005, may be maintained by bringing about the uniformity in the decision making process.
The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged. The action taken on this communication may invariably be communicated to RTIFED in due course. While rejoining, the number and date of this communication may please be invariably mentioned.
If no acknowledgement/reply is received, I intend to file RTI Application after a month. to know the:
(i) status of implementation of these recommendations; &
(ii) status of action taken on this communication and its latest status,
This communication is sent through electronic media and as such does not warrant any signature.
Thanking you & with Warm Regards,
Very cordially yours,
Surendera M. Bhanot
President RTIFED[2]
Enclosure: as stated please.
Attachment(s) from RTIFED - Surendera M. Bhanot | View attachments on the web
1 of 1 File(s)
Posted by: "RTIFED - Surendera M. Bhanot" <rtifed@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
No comments:
Post a Comment