Translate:

Differences

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

--- explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti [2023/04/15 10:58] – Shrawan
+++ explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti [2026/04/19 16:06] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Justification for Denial of Information is mandatory ======
-{{like>}} {{tag>CIC,denial of information, decisions,}}
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations justification for denial under rti rti right to information india)
+metatag-description=(Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any...)}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In one line.** A PIO cannot refuse information with boilerplate. Section 7(8) requires a **reasoned order** with the specific Section 8 clause cited, the applicant's appeal rights, and the First Appellate Authority's name.
+**What that means in practice.**
+  * Generic citations ('confidential', 'policy') are not valid grounds.
+  * The burden of proving the exemption is **on the PIO** under Section 19(5).
+  * Thin reasoning invites reversal at first appeal.
+</WRAP>
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+{{like>}} {{tag>cic denial of information decisions}}
 ===== Central Information Commission Decisions =====
-  - Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.(({{ :explanations:decision_07072006_1.pdf |CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006}}))
+  - Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the [[explanations:information|information]] requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.(({{ :explanations:decision_07072006_1.pdf |CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006}}))
   - The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.(({{ :explanations:decision_30082006_1.pdf |CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.}}))
   - Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………(({{ :explanations:cic_bs_a_2013_000681_4968_m_130757.pdf |CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014}}))
@@ Line 18: / Line 33: @@
 This article is inspired from the original post made by J.P. Shah in the blog post [[https://jps50.blogspot.in/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html|here]]!
 ~~socialite~~

Was this helpful? — views