Right to information
dinesh
(Querist) 06 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
some one want to access information form a private institution under RTI, but its very much clear that Private institutions not come under RTI.
but which provison of RTI specifically denied it coz i have to repley that application.. so help plz..
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Just write Its not come in scope of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 January 2012
You are supposed to write that as you are not covered by definition given in section 2(h) of Right to Information Act therefore you are not obliged to give the information sought for.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 06 January 2012
Simple. We are exempt.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 07 January 2012
how ever that private institution should be bounded by one govt sector., just try to collect information from them.,
-tom-
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 07 January 2012
S. 8(1)(e), (i), (j) and S. 10(1) of the RTI Act :
Ms. J. D. Sahay, CCIT-1, Ahmedabad had applied for empanelment/appointment to the post of member, CBDT in 2006 but was not selected. Aggrieved by non-selection, in 2007 she sought certain information, which could throw light on the reason for her non-selection.
Vide two RTI applications, the appellant had sought copies of various documents including her ACRs of 10 years, minutes of the meeting of Committee of Secretaries (COS) and certain other information concerning the process of empanelment.
Both, her applications and appeals were rejected on the ground that the information sought for is personal and confidential in nature and, therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also on the basis that information sought is of secret/ confidential in nature, therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s.8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
Interestingly, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) further invoked S. 8(1)(e) stating that the information is available with the Department of Revenue in their fiduciary relationship with officers who were under consideration during the selection.
In her appeal before CIC, she made following submissions :
(i) Both CPIO and Appellate Authority erred in denying her the information and the decision was announced without hearing her. Hence grave injustice has been done to her;
(ii) Information has been used against her without disclosing the comments/gradation to her at any time. This is gross injustice done to her;
(iii) The plea regarding secret and confidential nature of information does not hold force because the information relates to the appellant and that she is not seeking information in respect of any other person;
(iv) The procedure and technique followed to determine any cut-off point should be disclosed to the aspirants. The action relating to the determination and application of cut-off points being a critical factor for an aspirant should be put in public domain.
At the hearing before the full Bench of CIC, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in the written submission argued that file dealing with selection of Members, CBDT contains various secret and personal information about the officials considered for selection. This information is exempted from disclosure in view of the provisions contained in S. 8(1)(e), (g), (h), and (j) of the RTI Act. At the time of hearing, the respondents also stated that what are being asked for are not DPC proceedings but proceedings of a Selection Committee consisting of senior Secretaries. All these proceedings are confidential and marked as such. They also submitted that these minutes are not with them but the Cabinet Secretariat.
CIC in its order stated :
· The object of RTI Act is also to bring in transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. RTI Act confers a right on the citizen to access information held by a public Authority and every public Authority is obliged to facilitate this right. ACRs do contain an objective assessment of an officer and non-communication of the same has been held to be arbitrary by the Court and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
· In regard to the disclosure of Annual Confidential Report, it has been our view that what is contained therein is undoubtedly ‘personal information’ about that employee. Accordingly, in Shri Gopal Kumar v. Maj. Gen. Gautam Dutt, DGW, Army HQ, (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 dated 13-7-2006), a Division Bench of Commission held that ACRs are protected from disclosure because arguably such disclosure seriously harms interpersonal relationship in a given organisation. Further, the ACR notings represent an interaction based on trust and confidence between the officers involved in initiating, reviewing or accepting the ACRs. These officers could be seriously embarrassed and even compromised if their notings are made public.
As regards the documents concerning DPC, the concerned Public Authority is directed to make available information in terms of request of the appellant but there shall be no obligation to disclose details concerning 3rd parties. The respondent Public Authority may suitably use the severability clause in S. 10(1) of the Right to Information Act.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 07 January 2012
Simply you can say that you are not covered under the RTI Act.
The experts have sufficiently guided you with respect to legal aspects.
