Dear All, "Top down lectures on RTI" from the commanding heights of the silly little minds of RTI activists is not encouraged on this group. We are a collaborative discussion forum, so please state preconceived opinions in the form of queries or topics for group discussion.
In my experience PIOs are not in the habit of saying "This is not the sort of information that can be given to citizens under the RTI Act". In fact PIOs rarely make such statements because in law they are not allowed to say this. The argument that 7(8)(1) gives rights to know reasons in this situation is fallacious. The right to know reasons for rejection is only in the case when the rejection is communicated under 7(1). (please read the clause carefully) When 7(1) is used for rejection/denial, an exemption under section 8 or 9 must be used. So 7(8) merely deals with a very limited case where the *ENTIRE* (untransferred portion of) RTI request is rejected by the PIO and the appellant is entitled to know the reasons why - so as to correct it by way of a fresh application. In fact a careful reading of 7(1) will show that if an applicant has asked for say 10 separate pieces of information - 1 of which is covered by an 8(1) exemption - PIO can technically reject the *ENTIRE* RTI request. People who follow our Responsible RTI Code will not be bothered by such half-baked PIOs. (I've never eaten a half-baked PIO and am interested in knowing what they taste like). For example to my own many many RTI requests, only once has a PIO (Exec.Dir of RBI / Shri V.Das) ever used an 8(1) exemption against me - and which was promptly dismissed by the FAA (Dr. Rakesh Mohan). NB: As someone else pointed out, this FA of mine is available in our Files section to see how 8(1) exemptions are to be challenged. No, what our RESPONSIBLE RTI Code following members are now up against is the last defence available to the P/A. Bribing the Central Information Commission, by cash, houses, women, liquor, gifts .. you name it to ensure that our cases never come up for hearing before it and that information is never given to us. Our group does not allow file attachments. This is to safeguard members from computer virii. If the MS-Word attachment is emailed to me offlist, it can be uploaded to our File section. PS: Our group policy also discourages usage of misleading unofficial titles like "RTI speaker" which have the potential to confuse some of our new members. The Indian Constitution (Art. 18 ?) also discourages Indians from accepting foreign titles and honors. This policy also applies to mobile numbers. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Krishnaraj Rao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > When a PIO or an Information Commissioner authoritatively argues, "This is> not the sort of information that can be given to citizens under the RTI > Act", many of us are speechless, and unable to defend our right to > information. What are the relevant points of the RTI Act in our favour? How > can we prove that the point being used by PIOs to deny us information is > illogical? > > Being unable to logically argue our cases before PIOs and Information > Commissioners, we falter. Even seasoned PIOs and Information Commissioners > speak from half-baked knowledge, unable to apply their mind systematically > and logically to the various sections, sub-sections and clauses of the RTI > Act. > > *Did you know that the RTI Act entitles you, the appellant, to a detailed > justification for denial of information?* This is a fact that many > Information Commissioners never point out at the time of 2nd Appeal > hearings, and usually downplay. They don't ask PIOs to set down in writing > the reasons for denial; instead, they readily accept lame excuses in order > to waive penalties of flimsy or imaginary grounds. > > *Section 7 (8) clearly says: * > > *Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public > Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, > shall communicate to the person making the request, * > > * (i) the reasons for such rejection;* > > * (ii) **the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be > preferred; and* > > * (iii) **the particulars of the appellate authority.* > > > > *Further, section 19 (5) states: * > > *In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was > justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public > Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.* > > * * > > *To defend ourselves, we must know what our rights are and where exactly > they are under which clause of RTI Act 2005.* > > As a remedy to widespread ignorance, RTI speaker G R Vora and I put our > heads together and created a checklist to compel PIOs to provide valid > reasons under RTI for denying information. The attached checklist > enumerates the myriad reasons for which information must NOT be withheld, > and the handful of reasons that allow a PIO to justifiably deny information. > In the near future, we hope to make this form compulsory for PIOs, whether > or not they are denying information. It would bring greater clarity and > compliance, and ease the task of both applicants and PIOs. > > Please understand your various rights including many hidden ones by > studying this checklist (attached word file called "Form for PIOs denying > information to applicants") . > > When you find a sub-section or clause cited, study the actual sub-section > etc. in its context by referring to the Word file of RTI Act 2005 (also > attached). > > Study this and get extra confidence to deal with PIOs, 1st Appellate > Authorities and Information Commissioners. By correctly citing various > sections of the Act, you can reduce their scope to wrongly deny you > information. > > As always, I welcome your inputs and feedback. > > Warmly, > Krishnaraj Rao > 98215 88114 > > * * > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
