Dear Venkatesh The decision of SC Agrawal is not relevant to this issue
We have 2 POVs in the CIC on this question. IC(AT) says only information EXCLUSIVELY held by a P/A can be disclosed under section 6. IC (SG) has "respectfully differed" with his interpretation. As a Moderator I alway guide our members in the most conservative fashion so that they are not eventually disappointed. The 2 links are http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-12042007-01.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-14072009-17.pdf As you know I have repeatedly asked for this matter to be resolved by Mr Habibullah - but for reasons best known to him he has evaded deciding the issue. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@...> wrote: > > Dear friends, > I respectfully beg to differ from the interpretation given by Sarbajit to > the phrase "held by". "Held by" as a phrase indicates physical possession of > a document by a public authority. This has been made crystal clear by the > Delhi High Court in the CPIO, Supreme Court v S C Agarwal case. Critics may > say that the Delhi HC decision has been challenged before the SCI. I do not > think in this case the SCI is arguing on the definition of the term 'held > by'. Their problem is about coverage of the RTI Act vis-a-vis the CJI's > office and other ancillary issues. > > If a document is placed in the public domain it does not disappear from the > possession of the public authority. the hard and soft copies of the document > continue to be held by that public authority unless they have legitimately > destroyed it. Similarly the mere fact that something has been placed in the > public domain does not ensure that it stays there and is easily accessible > to people. We need to move beyond the bureaucratic perspective of looking > upon the 'public domain' as a notional sphere to turning it into a > functional domain. From a functional perspective unless a document is > accessible in the office of the public authority on demand, immediately or > in a publicly accessible library or on a noticeboard for all times to come, > or most importantly on the Internet, it must be treated as information that > is not available in the public domain. > > For example, publishing something in the gazette places information in the > public domain. But it does not ensure that it stays there and is easily > accessible to people. Copies of gazette notifications get exhausted. the > e-gazette database is accessible only on subscription. Unless some > department has made its gazette notifications openly accessible on its > website, the information is as good as not being available in the public > domain. Sarbajit and I have knocked our heads on DDA's doors trying to get > them to place on their website all their Rules notified in the gazette over > the years. This is because they are no longer accessible at any place except > through personal contacts with those who may have saved copies meticulousy. > This case alone is enough to demonstrate that what is placed in the public > domain does not necessarily stay there or is easily accessible to everybody. > > > At least one copy of the information placed in the public domain must be > presumed to be available with the concerned public authority. So what is > there in the law to prevent any citizen from seeking it under S. 6(1)? And > where in S 7(1) or S* or S9 does it say that what is proactively disclosed > under S. 4(1)(b) cannot be provided in response to an application under > S6(1). > > This kind of interpretation unfortunately has found its way in some previous > decisions of the CIC also. With due respect to the wisdom of the CIC it must > be said that such interpretations are bad in law and as activists we must > challenge them before the appropriate authorities at appropriate moments. > > The question that Sarbajit needs to ponder over is why has he litigated for > so long before the CIC for the DDA Rules when according to his own > definition they are already in the public domain. > Thanks > Venkat > > > > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of sarbajitr > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [rti_india] Re: interpreation of Section 2(f) and 2(J) > > > > > Dear Anurag > > The query is not very clear. > > Circulars are supposed to be proactively disseminated under section 4. Once > disseminated under section 4, they are in the public domain and no longer > "held by or under control of" the public authority - and hence cannot be > provided under section 6 process. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> , > anurag prasad <yanuragprasad@> wrote: > > > > > > Hello everyone > > > > Can anybody interpret section 2(f) and 2(j) . One of the public authority > resorted to transfer a request under section 6(3) of the Act . The > receipient public authority ( who received the request under section 6(3) ) > infered that the information is to be provided by the original public > authortiy and informed the applicant to receive the information from the > original public authrority. The information was sought by his was circular > issued by administrative ministry of his organisation and the requester is > an employee of subordinate office of the same administrative ministry. > > > > > > Anurag > > >
