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
explanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2018/06/01 02:02] – Shrawanexplanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2023/04/15 10:50] (current) – Shrawan
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 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 42: 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 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 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.” 
  
-<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 80: 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 104: Line 60:
  
 In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company. In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.
-<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 case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..  In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: ….. 
  
Line 133: Line 78:
  
 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 Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: **“Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”** 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 Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: **“Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”**
-<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 objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.  The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company. 
  
Line 162: Line 96:
  
 In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]]. In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].
-<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 case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that – In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –
  
Line 189: 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