Differences

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

--- explanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2018/06/01 01:53] – Shrawan
+++ explanations:citizen-under-rti-act [2018/06/01 02:02] – Shrawan
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== 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.
 ‘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.
-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))]
@@ Line 35: / Line 36: @@
 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.
@@ Line 103: / Line 104: @@
 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: …..
@@ Line 110: / Line 122: @@
-  * 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 119: / Line 133: @@
 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.
@@ Line 133: / Line 158: @@
 “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.”
+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.
+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>
@@ Line 145: / Line 174: @@
 </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.
-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 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 –