Differences

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

--- explanations:third-party [2017/11/26 14:47] – [Third Party under RTI] Shrawan
+++ explanations:third-party [2017/11/26 14:47] – [Citizen's right to information is given priority with regard to privacy:] Shrawan
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 "The Supreme Court of India has ruled that citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of mis-governance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the citizen's right to information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy."
+<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>
 In extraordinary situations there are other laws which apply to secure privacy of information: "We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. "