Whispers Forum

Daughter of Late Lakshmi Kanta Bhakta and Sumati Rani Bhakta sought to know on what ground her mother got employment in the life time of her father. The applicant submitted that her father was mentally not well and therefore her mother was given employment and there is a dispute regarding landed property among the legal heirs. Therefore, she is entitled to receive the information. The information with regard to appointment of Smt. Sumati Rani Bhakta was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any larger public interest, the reply of the CPIO is accepted and no further action is called for.
Comments
It is not uncommon to see RTI applications being filed to settle scores in cases of personal animosity. However, irrespective of the purpose, personal information cannot be provided unless there is a larger public interest..
Citation: Shikha Paul v. Metal & Steel Factory in File no.: - CIC/DODFP/A/2020/113465, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

DEBATE (1)
They are successful because they are free from family pressure. They do not compromise with certain things.
Girja Shankar
Everything in GoI be transparent
I agree with Subhash Sirivastava. In 16 years India is struggling with the fact that which organization falls under RTI which not, this is intentional. Best would be if everything in GoI including NGOs trusts, political parties be transparent. Everything should be clearly depicted on their official websites. Even private sector too should follow the same.
Harish Kumar

DEBATE(1)
Bachelor Chief Ministers can be available round the clock for the public welfare. Bachelors can give more time than married.
Suresh Kapse
CIC giving orders contradictory to their own previous orders
The CIC has been giving a host of orders which are contradictory to their own previous orders or to the orders of other benches. The rationale of the order is not clear in many cases. If public money is used in the establishment of an organisation or the running of an organisation, it is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Surprisingly, the authorities responsible for implementing the RTI Act are taking a twisted interpretation, depending upon who the individual is who is seeking the information. Sometimes, it depends on which is the organisation answerable for the RTI Application. Even after 16 years of RTI Act being in force, we are still fighting about whether an organisation is covered under the ambit of the RTI Act. God help RTI
Subhash Shrivastava

DEBATE (1)
I don't buy this theory. I am of the view that there are numbers of Chief Ministers who fared well being married in this country.
Priyanka Agarwal
CBIC violating Transfer - Posting Policy
CBIC has not been transferring officers out of station for the last two years, may be due to corona. The officers of Batches 2008 onwards are posted in the same stations for the last 13 to 14 years. Officers who have joined as AC in 2008 are JCs now and on Jan 1, 2022 will become Addl. Commissioners, are continuing in the same stations, specially big metro cities, for last 13 to 14 years. Some have managed postings in Directorates, so that their tenure in that particular metro city is exempted, so that they may remain posted in the same metro after their tenure in Directorates is over. This is very dangerous situation, which is breeding corruption. It is high time PMO, FM and Revenue Secretary, look into this issue and nip this corruption, which is being done by CBIC, in violation of Transfer - Posting Policy.
Virendra Kushwaha

The applicant sought copies of marks awarded in different levels of examination to the appellant and other candidates, by each Member of the Recruitment Board constituted for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher at Air Force School, Sarsawa. The applicant submitted that all the schools of Air Force are built on the land allotted to the Air Force Complex which is government land and in addition, the building for these schools is also being constructed by the Air Force with the government funds received from the Defence budget allocated to the Indian Air Force. The PIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertains to Air Force School, Sarsawa. Air Force Schools are run under the aegis of “The Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society” and do not fall under the term “Public Authority”. It is a non-public fund venture and does not fall under the definition of public authority as per Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the AFS Sarsawa is not a public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO was asked whether they can obtain any information from the custodian to which he submitted that they work in ex-officio capacity and will not be able to access information. In view of the same the Commission is not able to provide any relief.
Comments
In the case of Union of India and another v. Chotelal and Others on 8.12.1998, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the characters of the Regimental Fund, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said fund cannot be held to be public fund by any stretch of imagination.
Citation: Priyanka Taneja v. Indian Air Force in File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2020/108465, Date of Decision: 01/11/2021
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com