Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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

Similar News