This is an old revision of the document!
Grounds for Rejection
It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” <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> Grounds of Rejection of RTI There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied: * The organisation is not a Public authority - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not substantially financed or controlled by the Government. * What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’ ===== Some examples to explain the above: ===== <note>‘Why have I not got a ration card?’ is not asking for information; but ‘I want the progress of my file relating to my application for a ration card’ is asking information. ‘Why have I not got admission?’ is not asking for information, whereas ‘I want the cut-off marks at which admission was granted’ is asking for information. However, abiding by the spirit of Section 5(3), the PIO should help to reframe such queries.</note> * The information asked for falls in the exemptions of Section 8(1) or under Section 9 applies. Section 9 bars giving information which would violate private party copyright. * Providing extracts from the records is required to be done as per Section 2(j)(ii) unless it would require too much time. If giving the information would require too much of the resource of the Public authority, it cannot refuse to give the information. * If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant. <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>
Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution, in which case, the request for information, can be denied.
There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand, if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the PIO should do this. <html> <script async src=“pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js”></script> <ins class=“adsbygoogle” style=“display:block” data-ad-format=“fluid” data-ad-layout-key=“-gu-18+5g-2f-83” data-ad-client=“ca-pub-3082882621726443” data-ad-slot=“4321988277”></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </html> However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.
<html> <script async src=“pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js”></script> <ins class=“adsbygoogle”
style="display:block" data-ad-format="fluid" data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443" data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script> </html>