Right to Information Wiki

Encyclopedia on RTI for everyone
You will find the Guide to Online RTI.

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: RTI Wiki » Common Terms » Citizenship under RTI Act 2005
explanations:citizen-under-rti-act

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
explanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2018/06/01 01:53] – Shrawanexplanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2023/04/15 10:50] (current) – Shrawan
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ====== ====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======
 +{{tag>citizenship,india}}{{like>}} 
 +{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400 |}}
 Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information. Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.
  
 ‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person. ‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.
 Every citizen is a person, but the vice versa is not true. Artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen. Every citizen is a person, but the vice versa is not true. Artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
-Juristic person cannot enforce fundamental rights, but the individual citizens forming such legal entity / juristic persons can invoke the fundamental rights.+The juristic person cannot enforce fundamental rights, but the individual citizens forming such legal entity / juristic persons can invoke the fundamental rights.
  
 In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))] In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]
-<html> +
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> +
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" +
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" +
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" +
-     data-ad-format="fluid" +
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" +
-     data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins> +
-<script> +
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); +
-</script> +
-</html>+
  
 "Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act." "Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."
Line 35: Line 25:
 A conjunctive reading of all these Sections, especially section-3 with 6(1), would make it clear that a Citizen as a person can seek public information.  A conjunctive reading of all these Sections, especially section-3 with 6(1), would make it clear that a Citizen as a person can seek public information. 
  
-A "Citizen", under the Constitution Part II, that deals with "citizenship" can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person like corporation, banks.(Prabhakar S. Yende v PIO, Mapusa, Municipal Council, Goa.). +A "Citizen", under the Constitution Part II, that deals with "citizenship" can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person like the corporation, banks.(Prabhakar S. Yende v PIO, Mapusa, Municipal Council, Goa.). 
  
 Section 2(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act defines that a "person" does not include a company, an association or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not." “Person” has been defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Section 2(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act defines that a "person" does not include a company, an association or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not." “Person” has been defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.
Line 41: Line 31:
 ===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act ===== ===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====
 <pagebreak> <pagebreak>
-<html> +
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> +
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" +
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" +
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" +
-     data-ad-format="fluid" +
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" +
-     data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins> +
-<script> +
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); +
-</script> +
-</html>+
 ==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ==== ==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====
  
-The issue whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:+The issue of whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held: 
  
 +“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, the definition of the word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”
  
-“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the definition of word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.” 
  
-<html> 
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> 
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" 
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" 
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" 
-     data-ad-format="fluid" 
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" 
-     data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins> 
-<script> 
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 
-</script> 
-</html> 
  
 In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//: In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:
Line 79: Line 47:
  
  
-It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 include natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. **A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”**. Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.+It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 includes natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. **A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”**. Every citizen is a person but vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen. 
 + 
 +The issue of whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.
  
-The issue whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions. 
  
-<html> 
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> 
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" 
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" 
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" 
-     data-ad-format="fluid" 
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" 
-     data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins> 
-<script> 
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 
-</script> 
-</html> 
 ====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ====== ====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======
  
Line 110: Line 67:
  
  
-  * The issue whether a company can seek information came up before the Central Information Commission in a number of cases. It was held by the double bench of CIC in the case of //Inder Grover Vs Ministry of Railways// decided on 27/6/2006 [(Inder Grover Vs Ministry of Railways, CIC/OK/A/2006/00121)] that it would have been in order if the CPIO had declined the information under Section-3 of the Act as the Appellant had applied as the Managing Director of the Company and not as citizen of India. +The issue whether a company can seek information came up before the Central Information Commission in a number of cases. It was held by the double bench of CIC in the case of //Inder Grover Vs Ministry of Railways// decided on 27/6/2006 [(Inder Grover Vs Ministry of Railways, CIC/OK/A/2006/00121)] that it would have been in order if the CPIO had declined the information under Section-3 of the Act as the Appellant had applied as the Managing Director of the Company and not as citizen of India. 
-  * In the case of //Bibhav Kumar Vs. University of Delhi// decided on 3/7/2006[(Bibhav Kumar Vs. University of Delhi decided on 3/7/2006 (CIC/OK/A/2006/00050))] the double bench of the Commission held that “the Commission could not agree with the PIO’s contention that the information was sought on behalf of an institution. The Appellant had applied in his own name and had only given his address as that of an NGO for the purpose of correct delivery of post. He had informed the PIO about the change of address. Thus merely giving the address of an NGO does not imply that the institution was asking for the information” In this case, the applicant as a citizen submitted RTI Application and merely used the address of an NGO for communication. + 
-  * In the case of //J.C. Talukdar Vs. C.E.(E) CPWD Kolkata[(J.C. Talukdar Vs. C.E.(E) CPWD Kolkata (CIC/WB/C/2007/ 00104 & 105 dated 30/3/2007))] , the Applicant Shri. Talukdar, requested for certain information from CPWD, Kolkata, in his capacity as Managing Director of one Ganesh Electric Stores. This application was made in his name and under his signature. The said request was refused under Section 3 of the RTI Act. Consequently Shri. Talukdar filed an appeal before CIC. In this case, the CIC held that –+In the case of //Bibhav Kumar Vs. University of Delhi// decided on 3/7/2006[(Bibhav Kumar Vs. University of Delhi decided on 3/7/2006 (CIC/OK/A/2006/00050))] the double bench of the Commission held that “the Commission could not agree with the PIO’s contention that the information was sought on behalf of an institution. The Appellant had applied in his own name and had only given his address as that of an NGO for the purpose of correct delivery of post. He had informed the PIO about the change of address. Thus merely giving the address of an NGO does not imply that the institution was asking for the information” In this case, the applicant as a citizen submitted RTI Application and merely used the address of an NGO for communication. 
 + 
 +In the case of J.C. Talukdar Vs. C.E.(E) CPWD Kolkata[(J.C. Talukdar Vs. C.E.(E) CPWD Kolkata (CIC/WB/C/2007/ 00104 & 105 dated 30/3/2007))] , the Applicant Shri. Talukdar, requested for certain information from CPWD, Kolkata, in his capacity as Managing Director of one Ganesh Electric Stores. This application was made in his name and under his signature. The said request was refused under Section 3 of the RTI Act. Consequently Shri. Talukdar filed an appeal before CIC. In this case, the CIC held that –
  
  
Line 133: Line 92:
 “In my opinion it is clear that there is no such legal entity as a firm. A firm is merely a compendious way of describing certain number of persons who carry o business as partners in a particular name, but in law and in the eye of the law the firm really consists of the individual partners who go to constitute that firm. Therefore, the persons before the tribunal are the individual partners of the firm and not a legal entity consisting of the firm.” “In my opinion it is clear that there is no such legal entity as a firm. A firm is merely a compendious way of describing certain number of persons who carry o business as partners in a particular name, but in law and in the eye of the law the firm really consists of the individual partners who go to constitute that firm. Therefore, the persons before the tribunal are the individual partners of the firm and not a legal entity consisting of the firm.”
  
-<html> 
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> 
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" 
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" 
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" 
-     data-ad-format="fluid" 
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" 
-     data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins> 
-<script> 
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 
-</script> 
-</html> 
  
 Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen. Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen.
Line 165: Line 112:
  
 ==== Conclusions ==== ==== Conclusions ====
-<html> +
-<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> +
-<ins class="adsbygoogle" +
-     style="display:block; text-align:center;" +
-     data-ad-layout="in-article" +
-     data-ad-format="fluid" +
-     data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" +
-     data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins> +
-<script> +
-     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); +
-</script> +
-</html>+
   * When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.   * When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.
   * When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.    * When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant. 
explanations/citizen-under-rti-act.txt · Last modified: 2023/04/15 10:50 by Shrawan