Vidya (ss) 18 May 2016
victim (master) 18 May 2016
Ask some rti activist or advocate to draft an application and use the attached decision of CIC in similar matter.
H.JanakiManohar Rao (lawyer) 18 May 2016
victim (master) 18 May 2016
read this. may be its of some help. an article by j p shah rti activist.
INFORMATION RELATING TO SUB-JUDICE MATTER UNDER RTI ACT
Of late, PIOs are denying information sought under RTI Act with the reason that matter is sub-judice i.e. matter is pending with a court of law or tribunal or consumer forum/commission etc.
RTI Act no where permits refusal of information just because subject of information is sub-judice. Under section 8.1.b only that information, which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court, has been exempted from disclosure. But PIOs extend to all information relating to court cases out of misinterpretation or ignorance or malice just to dodge information.
Following decisions of Central Information Commission are relevant:
1. Decision No.456/IC(A)/2006 F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/0694 dated 18-12-2006:
“There are no provisions in the RTI Act to reject an application for information merely on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. In the instant case, there is, however, no evidence to indicate that exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(b) of the Act has been sought by the CPIO. Therefore, the denial of information by the CPIO and appellate authority on ground of the matter being sub-judice is unjustified.”
2. CIC/SM/A/2008/000106 dated 22-10-2009
“………..The denial of information on the ground that the matter had been pending before the DRT is not supported by any of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Merely, because a matter has been pending before a Court or Tribunal, it cannot be denied to a citizen………”
3. CIC/SM/A/2012/000067 dated 27-09-2012
[Against CPIO, High Court of Calcutta, Appellate Side]
“In respect of the reply given by the CPIO, we have to say that no information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is subjudice. There is no provision in the Right to Information (RTI) Act which exempts any information from disclosure only on this ground. Information can be denied only under the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. We hope the CPIO will keep this in mind in future.”
4. CIC/SM/A/2010/000966 dated 11-04-2011
“After carefully considering the facts of the case, we do not find either the decision of the CPIO or the Appellate Authority in conformity with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. There is nothing in that Act which prevents
disclosure of information merely on the ground that a related matter is pending
before a court of law…………….”
5. CIC/LS/A/2009/000937 dated 10-06-2010
“After hearing the Respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file and keeping in view the written submissions the Commission first of all make it clear that the matter being sub-judice is not ground to withhold the requisite information under the RTI Act, unless the desired information has been expressly
forbidden to be published by any court of Law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court, in terms of the Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI
Act. In the present case the Respondents have not produced any order of the Court which has expressly forbidden the disclosure of the desired information. After making the legal position clear about the matter being sub-judice, the impugned points of the RTI application are discussed and decision on the point is
I would suggest that this note may be attached to RTI application as an annexure, so that despite this information if PIO supported by FAA ventures to deny information for it being sub-judice, they will have tough time in convincing Information Commissioner that both acted in good faith and without malafide during hearing of second appeal or complaint. Under section 19.5 of RTI Act the onus to justify replies rests with PIO. Under section 20.1 the burden of proving that PIO acted reasonably and diligently is enjoined on the PIO.
Authored by: J. P. Shah email@example.com 15112012