JAN SAHAYAK SCHEMES

Article          Important decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act – Part XV We, therefore, hold that the Cooperative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the definition of “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the State Government letter dated 5.5.2006 and the circular dated 01.06.2006 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, to the extent, made applicable to societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act would stand quashed in the absence of materials to show that they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government. In the matter of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Versus State of Kerala and others (Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013) the Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether a Co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short “th...

Article Important decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act – Part XIV   We find it very odd that in a matter of an enquiry in respect of an allegation of sexual harassment, the Union of India should claim privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. The contents of Reports alleging sexual harassment can hardly relate to affairs of State or anything concerning national security. In any event, absolutely nothing has been shown to us to warrant withholding the Reports and the documents from the appellant in relation to the enquiry of allegations of sexual harassment made by the appellant against.   In the matter of Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Ajit Seth & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4913 Of 2016 the Supreme Court considered the issue of providing enquiry report in in respect of an allegation of sexual harassment where the Union of India claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act.   The Court considered a few brief facts necessary for a prop...

  Article Important decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act – Part XIII …the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him… .. … request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. In the matter of Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. Versus The State Information Commission & Anr.( Civil Appeal No 823-854 Of 2016) and Public Service Commission U.P.Versus Raghvendra Singh ( Civil Appeal No.855 Of 2016) the Supreme Court held:   In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held that the respondents are en...

Article Important Decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act - Part XII Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer book, Section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to  prevent access to any third party and will not operate as a bar for  the very person who wrote the answer book, seeking inspection or  disclosure of it. In the matter of Union Public Service Commission versus Gourhari Kamila (Civil Appeal Nos. 6363-65 Of 2013) the Supreme Court considered the issue of information received in fiduciary relationship. The applicant sought the following information which was ordered to be provided by the CIC.   “1. What are the criteria for the short listing of the candidates? 2. How many candidates have been called for the interview? 3. Kindly provide the names of all the short listed candidates called for interview held on 16.3.2010. 4. How many years of exp...

Article Important Decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act - Part XI   The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out… …. Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act.   In the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission Versus Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9052 OF 2012) the Supreme Court decided whether the Commission was duty bound to disclose the names of the members of the Interview Board to any person including the examinee. Further, when the Commission could take up the plea of exemption from disclosure of information as contemplated under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 in this reg...

Article Important Decisions of the Supreme Court on RTI Act - Part X   Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences…. Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2)….. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void…. All the attributable defaults of a Central or State Public Information Officer have to be without any reasonable cause and persistently. … The Commission has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within the specified time was committed persistently and without a reasonable cause…. The burden of forming an opinion in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(2) and principles of natural justice lies upon the Commission. In the matter of Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9095 Of 2012) the Supre...