The answers lie here http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-17022010-04.pdf http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2010_000107.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-08102009-05.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-29012010-06.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-02032010-07.pdf http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-16102009-04.pdf
The real point you are missing in all these decisions is "THIS Commission in a series of decisions has held ..." One thing you can be sure about is that IC(MLS) is very well prepared if the DRDO takes him to Court. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "C K" <rtiwan...@...> wrote: > > http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2010_000107.pdf > > This Commission has consistently held in a series of its > decisions that despite notification u/s 24 of the Act `establishment' > matters of DRDO are not exempted from disclosure under the Act. > The question really is whether the information requested for by the > appellant can be denied to her under any clause of section 8 (1) of the > Act. To my mind, the answer is in the negative. I may add that > pendency of the matter in a court by itself can not be a ground for > denial of information requested for by the appellant. > > === > Sec 24(1) > Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and > human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: > > Do "establishment"" matters fall under the category of allegations of > corruption and human rights violations ? > > RTIwanted >
