Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Directs to PMO for Recheck RTI Application for information on nationwide lockdown and Covid-19 control: CIC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Central Information Commission has instructed the Prime Minister's Office to re-examine a request for information regarding the imposition of a nationwide lockdown on March 24, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The information was denied by the Under Secretary, PMO (acting as the Public Information Officer) in accordance with Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The provision stipulates that information must be provided unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the requested record.

The Chief Information Commissioner, YK Sinha, has stated that the White House has not cited any substantial provision of the Act to justify this exemption from disclosure. Therefore, the court ruled that the PIO's response is "untenable in law."

Section 8 of the Act specifies situations where disclosure exemptions are warranted (detailed at the end of this report).

"After reviewing the facts of the case, the Commission has determined that the PIO's response is not in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act... The Respondent has merely stated that the information requested by the Applicant falls under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act of 2005. In the reply sent to the appellant, neither the information requested by the appellant nor the relevant provisions of the RTI Act justifying exemption from disclosure were provided "the CIC reported.

The appellant, journalist Jugal Purohit, had requested information about meetings held by the PMO between January and March 2020 regarding Covid-19 and the authorities who participated.

He also requested information regarding the State and Central authorities, experts, and think tanks with whom the PMO consulted regarding any aspect of the nationwide lockdown.

In addition, he demanded copies of pertinent meeting communications concerning the planning and execution of the lockdown, the availability of essential supplies, and the response to and mitigation of its effects.

Unsatisfied with the PIO's denial of information, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on January 12, 2021. Indignant and dissatisfied by the Appellate Authority's order dated February 17, 2021, the Appellant filed this Second Appeal with the Commission.

Within three weeks, the CIC has ordered the PIO, PMO to reexamine the RTI application and provide a revised point-by-point response in accordance with the RTI Act.

A report on compliance must be submitted by the end of this month.

Among the exemptions provided by Section 8 are:

(a) information that would be detrimental to India's sovereignty and integrity, its economic interests, relations with foreign states, etc.;

(b) information whose publication has been expressly prohibited by a court of law;

(c) information whose disclosure would violate Parliament's or the State Legislature's privilege;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property;

(e) information accessible to a fiduciary.

(f) information received from a foreign government in confidence;

(g) information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(h) information that would hinder the investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of criminals;

(I) cabinet papers including records of Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers' deliberations;

(j) information pertaining to personal information whose disclosure has no bearing on any public activity or interest, or which would result in an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy.

D.D:11-07-2022

Jugal Purohit Versus Prime Minister's Office

Latest Legal News