Differences

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

--- explanations:third-party [2017/05/03 01:41] – Shrawan
+++ explanations:third-party [2017/11/26 14:47] – [Third Party under RTI] Shrawan
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Third Party under RTI ======
+{{like>}}{{tag>Insert Tag-Syntax}}
 The High Court of Delhi((Delhi High Court Decision: Suhas Chakma v. CIC & Ors. W. P. (C) No. 9118/2009 dated 22/01/2010)) held - “**that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party**”.
 Section 11(1) of the [[act:]] provides as follows:
@@ Line 14: / Line 13: @@
 “......looking to the provision of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2005, the words, the information ‘relating to or is supplied by the third party’ are such that it is for the third party to point out to the Public Information Officer sought for, to be disclosed supplied is treated as confidential but, third party can make a submission that now it is treating the said information as confidential. More so, when information is ‘relating to third party’ it may not be even know to that third party when and what information relating to third party, was collected by public body.................... What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information ‘relating to or supplied by the third party’ as confidential.”
+{{:explanations:third-party-rti.jpeg?400 |}}
 The said judgment also says, “What satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to disclosure of information about satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to the Act especially Section 8(d), 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) and looking to the process of disclosing information to the appellant ‘relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party’, the Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs, harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information, in considering whether the
@@ Line 20: / Line 19: @@
 In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of **//Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 decided on 30/07/2010//**, in Paragraph 21, which are as follows:
+<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>
 //“...It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy.