RTI CASE STUDIES

DISCLOSED IF EXEMPTED
Sr. No. Parties Involved Info. Asked for Action taken by PIO
(Decision of Commission) (Reasons for the same)
PIO shall be required to
supply the appellant,
Whether any info.
PIO informed attested copies of the
Provided by PIO should
Shrikant Vaidya applicant that the photocopies of documents
be attested for
Vs docs cannot be available in the records -
1 authenticity of PIO can
North Central attested due to non- along with a note on each
give straight away photo
Railway availability of original page clarifying that the
copy with our
docs in their records “Same are only copies of
attestation
photocopies and not copies
of Original Documents”
PIO returned that RTI Commission rules that the
application stating PIO instead of returning
Name of all the
that the same did not the application should
reporters belonging to
pertain to their office have forwarded the same
Kanchan Kumar Munger District who
to the appropriate
Vs have been issued
2 custodian of the -
PIO, Eastern railway passes along
information under section
Railway with information about
6(3) of RTI Act. The
the name of the
commission also issued a
dependents
show cause notice to the
PIO.
No information Denial of information has to
provided on the be justified on the basis of
ground that though exemptions provided under
the inquiry is section 8(1) of RTI Act. None
of the exemptions apply
completed but the
Dr. R.M. Nair Information re. the merely because an inquiry is
decision on the appeal going on or decision is
Vs charges levied against
3 made by the pending. Info to be provided -
Mr. P.K. Jha, Dr. BTC Murthy,
competent authority unless the denial was
PIO, Ayush Director, CCRYN
with regards to the justified.
aforesaid inquiry is
still pending PIO directed to provide
complete information to
the complainant.
 RTI CASE STUDIES
The CPIO provided the
Information through 12
appellant marks
points pertaining to
secured by her in each Info Denied
3500 candidates along
Priyamvada of five subjects which
with their personal info
Sharma she appeared for but Decision of CPIO upheld by FAA
4 and differentiation of -
Vs denied disclosure of
reserved category
SBI Mumbai info re. the other The decision further upheld by
candidates who secured
candidates under commission also
place under normal
section 8(1)(j) of RTI
category
Act
Disclosure of info Info Denied
Copy of note sheets denied under section
relating to granting 8(1) (h) of RTI Act as The decision further upheld by
permission to CBI to rile disciplinary commission also
prosecution against the proceeding and
appellant at trial court prosecution In the commission’s view
D. K. Jha
Bangalore proceeding were forcing the CBI to provide the
Vs
5 & pending. Moreover the - appellant evidence, records and
I.T. Department,
Copy of note sheers case in trial court was documents, would have the
New Delhi
relating to approving of based on report of CBI effect of interfering with the
charge-sheet issued to therefore info cannot CBI’s right to marshal evidence
the appellant in the be provided under and present it in the manner or
departmental section 11 of RTI Act in sequence, which in its
proceeding judgment would be necessary to
prove the guilt of the accused
The CPIO denied the Info Denied
disclosure of info
To seek information
under section 8(1) (h) Commission ruled that info
pertaining to file notings
Dr. Swetabh related to sanction of
connected to sanction of
Suman FAA upheld CPIO’s prosecution cannot be
prosecution and other
6 Vs order - disclosed.
information relevant to
I.T. Department, CPIO directed to give a speaking
the proceedings pending
New Delhi order as to how the disclosure
before the CBI court in a
of information would impede
matter against her
the process of investigation or
prosecution.
 RTI CASE STUDIES
To obtain info regarding CPIO denied
Decision of CPIO and FAA
the action taken on tax disclosure of info
Rajesh Kumar upheld by commission stating
evasion petition related under section 8(1)(j) of
Dived that the entire tax evasion
7 to Mr. Suresh Teary & the RTI Act. -
Vs enquiry report is not required to
Lava Teary including the
I.T. Department be provided to the appellant
entire tax evasion Further appeal
under section 8(1) (j)
enquiry report dismissed by FAA
CPIO forwarded notes Award of compensation to
to the dealing appellant
assistants to hand
over the info requested The commission awarded
No info available reg. by Shri. Gupta but the compensation of ` 3000/-
info asked for supporting staff was to appellant under section
Om Prakash continued to disregard 19 (1) (8) (b) to be paid by
Gupta Information was never the RTI Act. At a point DDA.
8 -
Vs provided to the of time the CPIO
DDA, New Delhi appellant by the dealing proposed disciplinary Full set of documents
hands. proceedings against furnished by CPIO
errant dealing hands forwarded to Vice-
for not responding to Chairman DDA for further
his written directions. suitable action under
section 25(5) of RTI Act
against errant officials.
CPIO denied Partial Disclosure
disclosure of info Ms. Goyal denied the
under section 8(1)(j) of disclosure of her personal
the RTI Act. info.
The commission directed the
G.L. Agarwal To seek info regarding I.T. Dept to provide only the
Vs the income tax return of net taxable income for
9 financial year before and after
-
I.T. Department, his daughter in law Ms.
Bangalore Arghya Goyal the marriage i.e. F.Y. 2005-
06, 2006-07 & 2007-08.

The respondent also to

provide the source of net
taxable income

To obtain info regarding
whether Income tax for
Marthorna Cheria pally
is assessed along with
PAN, assessment years
Babu Paul
for which the trust paid
Vs.
10 taxes, names of the
I.T. Department,
person who signed
Ernakulum
applications for trust,
name and addresses of
chartered accountant,
audited copies of B/s for
10 years
The appellant had sought
D.C. Goyal
information regarding SCL
11 Vs.
sports council, a body
ISRO
under ISRO.
Copy of application form
with affidavit submitted by
K.K. Dharman
the passport holder Mr.
Vs.
Udayakumar, Kadappilly,
12 PIO, MEA
Velayudhan, Palarivattom,
Regional passport
Kochi, Kerala; regarding
office, Cochin
the passport no A-H
585890
RTI CASE STUDIES
Disclosure of info The commission upheld the
denied under section decision of CPIO & FAA. The
8(1) (e) – Fiduciary appellant is free to make
relationship and application before the church
section 8(1) (j) management of before Registrar
personal information. of charities / Charity
It was also stated that - commissioner.
the appellant had not The third party i.e. the trust
stated larger public stated that if the appellant
interest desires he can put in
application to the charitable
Decision of CPIO trust and the info will be
upheld by FAA provided
The info was refused by The commission opined that
the CPIO on the ground the CPIO is not correct. An
that the requested information seeker cannot be
information was already compelled to look for info
-
available on the website through website. It is also
and the appellants quite possible that he may
request did not fall u/s not have the computer facility
2(f) of RTI Act available with him.
The PIO refused the info The commission is of the
under section 8(1)(j). opinion that the PIO has
completely misunderstood the
The PIO concluded that section 11 of3 the RTI ACT.
due to non-reply of Section 11 (1) requires PIO to
give notice to third party only
notices sent under
when he intends to disclose the
section 11(1) to Mr.
info and keep the third party’s
Udayakumar, it could be
submission in view while
presumed that he is not -
taking a decision about
willing to disclose the
disclosure of info.
details The commission rules that if
the third party’s address is not
FAA upheld decision of located it does not mean the
CPIO citizen’s right to information
would disappear.
PIO directed to provide
complete info to appellant.
 RTI CASE STUDIES
Appellant sought PIO did not supply the
information relating to info in the period of 30
the Instruction circular days.
no. 11185/PA2010-
11/30 dt. 30/10/10. There was a delay of
Amal Kumar The PIO was issued a show
1. A copy of the relevant 94 days in supplying
Banerjee cause notice.
board note of the bank the info.
Vs. Further the commission
13 and its approval by the -
Deemed PIO imposed a penalty as per
bank’s board PIO stated the reason
Allahabad Bank section 20(1) of the RTI act
discontinuing the Old for this delay as being
of Rs. 250/- per day delay
Pension Scheme of the overburdened.
Bank.
2. A copy of the relevant
letter of the GOI referred
to in the said circular
CPIO claimed that the
disclosure of MTM losses
in the derivative Commission observed that
transactions would affect there does not appear to
the economic interest of be a creation of any
Raja M.
the state. fiduciary relationship
Shanmugam Appellant sought the
Also info relating to MTM between RBI and the
14 Vs. bank wise breakup of -
position of banks are banks. Moreover a larger
CPIO, RBI, the MTM losses obtained by the RBI for public interest would be
Mumbai. discharging the served by disclosing the
regulatory and info under section 8(2) of
supervisory functions
the act.
and are held by RBI in
fiduciary capacity.
The commission held that a public
Appellant sought certain authority is not required to furnish
info mostly in the nature information which requires
M. Lakshmanan
of opinion based on certain Point wise reply given to drawing if inferences or making
Vs.
15 Mr. A. Madasamy
presumptions concerning appellant by CPIO - assumptions. It is not required to
ICICI banks which is not a provide advice or opinions to tan
CPIO RBI Mumbai
public authority under RTI applicant, unless it is available in
Act. the records of the public authority.
 RTI CASE STUDIES
The commission held that an
A number of unreasonable demand by one
The Appellant had filed inspections have been individual of the resource of the
extraordinarily large given and information state, to pursue his own whims
number of RTI has also been given at do not sub-serve the needs of
applications and repeated times. the democracy. The appellant
S.P. Goyal
appeals with the Public The appellant has a does not appear to be wanting
Vs.
16 Authority – number of disputes - information but wishes to use
PIO, Indian
with the bank. the RTI as a litigation tool. The
Overseas Bank
The appellant states There are a lot of appellant is using RTU in a
that he has probably litigations between the manner which is unfair and
filed over 1000 RTI bank and the take an extraordinary amount
applications appellant. of resources of the Public
authority.

PIO claimed exemption

under section 8(1)(e) of
The appellant had
the RTI Act.
sought information
regarding her
FAA upheld PIO’s
psychiatric treatment The commission held that
decision. FAA further
and records relating to in the instant case of
remarked that in cases
the same. She states information is being
wherein reasonable
Rashmi Dixit she was forcibly sought by the patient
possibility if dispute or
Matiman admitted to IHBAS by herself. The information
17 marital discord -
Vs. her husband. She cannot be denied under
existed, divulgence of
PIO, IBHAS claimed that she had section 8(1)(e) of the RTI
info under the
not been informed about Act. The PIO is directed to
provision of RTI act by
her ailments and alleged provide the complete
either of the spouses
that she was information as per records.
or partners or any
hospitalized only to be
other family members
terrorized and be
or even friends is
certified as mentally ill.
neither appropriate
nor desirable.
 RTI CASE STUDIES
The CPIO provided The commission held that
partial information appellant appears to have
and requested the exercises no reasonable restrain
appellant to narrow in asking for info. Even reading
down the remaining such a large application &
The appellant filed RTI
Manoj Kumar information since the trying to make sense of it would
application seeking
18 Vs. same is voluminous;. - disproportionately divert
information on as many
PIO, NPCIL resources of public authority.
as 64 points.
FAA upheld CPIO’s The commission further
Order mentioned that citizens are also
expected to observe some
responsibility and restrain
when seeking information.
The PIO states that “ The commission was of the
The copy of service opinion that if the
book will be given only photocopies are not
on payment of Rs. attested no citizen would
36/- towards cost of be able to use these as info
K.S. Anusuya
The appellant sought 18 pages” provided by public
Vs.
certified copies of his Further the authority. This elementary
19 PIO Ministry of -
service record for years photocopies provided commonsense has not
Health & Family
from 1976 to till date. to the appellant were been applied by PIO. The
Welfare, ICMR
not attested. appellant was further
awarded compensation of
Rs. 1000/- under section
19(8)(b) because of the
ignorance of PIO.