Central Information Commissioner while considering an appeal from Shri Pフランティシェク・ハラマ FH-1694 花瓶 朝・昼・夜 uranit(ウランガラス)【楽ギフ_包装選択】【楽ギフ_のし宛書】.R『わたしの讃歌』出産祝還暦桃の節句マイネームインポエム名前詩毛筆文字命名紙命名札百寿命名書お雛祭り桃の節句端午の節句短歌名前詩歌誕生日古希喜寿敬老金婚式ブライダル引き出物名前旗命名軸七五三. Chandol held that【強力ラジウム！ゲルマニウム入浴器】 玉川の湯 「癒」 【大判】 – 『玉川の湯 癒』を家庭のお風呂に沈めれば、「ラジウム」「ラドンガス」「マイナスイオン」「遠赤外線効果」で身体を芯から温めます。【s, any information sought whether similar treatment has been given to all the employees of Central Council of Homeopathy for the same action or inaction relates to transparency in the Council and involves public interestビューモント ウィスキーメジャースタンド ロータリー式 6本立1 1／2oz 245×H545最大H630mm ＜白＞. Therefore【ポイント5倍】 オーツカ光学 (OOTSUKA) 照明拡大鏡 NEOLIGHT-MS 8倍 (マグネットスタンド式) (NEOLGHT-MS-8) 〈ネオライト〉, Central Information Commissioner directed Central Council of Homeopathy to provide information in the matter to the appellant【ポイント20倍】Bally（バリー） ブリーフケース TAJEST-MD 261 CHOCOLATE RED／WHITE.
EarlierBlu-ray・DVD 全巻購入特典 うしおととら とらフィギュア 徳間ジャパンコミュニケーションズ【中古】, appellant sought information vide his RTI Application dated 04勝?新 メソッド 古田新太編「体」 [DVD] 新品.02ブラックムートン【BlackMouton】コットンメランジサロペット（65538）【ワンピース | オールインワン・サロペット】.2014 regarding action taken by the office against the officials who came late to office in respect to an Office Memorandum dated 09送料無料(沖縄離島除く) amadana サーバー アマダナ サーバー クリティア【メーカー直送品】 ポイント2倍 豪華特典付きアマダナ ウォーターサーバー amadana × CLYTIA [HC1.09.2013 and the Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that, the Office Memorandum mentioned herein above are addressed only to the appellant. In such cases, there is no point in taking action against any other personal or staffs who comes late to the office.
It was contented by the appellant before the CIC that, five casual leaves (CL) were deducted against him for late coming, and he wanted to know that, whether similar action taken against other employees who comes late to the office. Accordingly, he filed the application under Right to Information Act.
However, PIO submitted before the Central Information Commissioner that, the appellant’s application was referring to a specific Office Memorandum where, it is specifically issued to the appellant. Therefore, there is no relevance in taking action against other employees for late arrival on the basis on the Office Memorandum mentioned in the RTI Application. Hence, it was informed by the Public Information Office that, they were not in a position to provide any information to the appellant.
CIC after hearing both the parties came to a conclusion that, the information sought relates to transparency in the Council and also involves public interest, whether similar treatment has been meted out to the other employees for the same lapse/action. CIC further directed the respondent, i.e., Central Council of Homeopathy to provide complete information in with respect to action taken by them for similar lapse of late coming to office by other employees.
However, the respondent is not supposed to disclose the names of such employees against which, they have taken any similar action. CIC further directed that, in case no similar action is taken against any employees for late coming, then proper justification for the same shall be provided to the appellant.
Read the Full Judgment of PR Chandol v. Central Council of Homeopathy decided on 28-04-2015
While considering an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, seeking certain information relating to the passport issued to his wife by the Regional Passport Officer, Passport officer rejects husband’s RTI application, and informed the applicant that, the info cannot be furnished. Such information is not liable to be disclosed in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits it.
After his appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, applicant had appealed the Central Information Commissioner, and had approached the High Court. The High Court in its order noted that even if that issue of appeal before the Central Information Commissioner is kept aside, the Passport Officer was right in his stand. “The reasons indicated are justified in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act. Hence, the same does not call for interference.”
Section 8(1) (j) in the Right to Information Act, 2005
Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 says nothing contained in the RTI Act will apply on the organization which are listed in the second schedule of the Section 24, provided that the information (any material in any form) held by or under the control of the public authorities related to allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be covered under the exemption.
Recent inclusion of CBI in the list of exempted organizations is one of the most debated as it primarily deals with corruption cases which are not covered in the protection given to organizations under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Subsequently, a two-member committee constituted by the CIC has said that such decisions (inclusion of CBI in the list of exempted organizations) to shield organizations from the transparency law should not be the result of “political convenience or other extraneous factors“.
Section 24: Act not to apply to certain organizations —
- Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub‑section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.
- The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organization established by that Government or omitting there from any organization already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organization shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
- Every notification issued under sub‑section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
- Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations, being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub‑section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.
- Every notification issued under sub‑section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru of Delhi High Court, while setting aside a CIC (Central Information Commission) order, asking the apex court to maintain details of medical reimbursement availed by each judges of the apex court during last three years and such information shall be furnished to the information seekers. Since, Medical records of reimbursements of judges’ does not serve any public interest, Delhi High Court held that, such information cannot be disclosed under RTI Act.
High Court while terming the CIC (Central Information Commission) ruling as “erroneous” and said that, “medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest, and in the present case, the CIC has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter.”
It was a case where, the apex court responded to the RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal that, Supreme Court does not keep records of medical reimbursement of individual judges and, declined to furnish him the information under the transparency Act. Subsequently, Subhash Chandra Agrawal moved an appeal before the Central Information Commission, seeking directions to the Supreme Court to make necessary arrangements to maintain details of medical reimbursement made to judges.
However, the Supreme Court refused to furnish information, citing a stay by Delhi High Court in a similar case, prompting Agarwal to once again approach Central Information Commission. Subsequently, Central Information Commission directed the apex court to place the order before the Secretary General of the Supreme Court so that he can ensure its compliance.
Supreme Court subsequently moved to High Court in appeal, and the Court stressed that, “any information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy.”