Rashi Jha

Excerpt The Central Information Commission on the date July 6th, 2021 decided on a case where the appellant was dissatisfied with the response given by the CPIO. Even the FAA’S order was not accepted by him. So, he approached the...

The Central Information Commission on June 26th, 2021 decided on a case where the appellant challenged and raised questions on the criteria of the examination. Moreover, the commission after hearing both sides decided that the standard of academic material cannot be questioned as it was drafted for the better estimation and election of the candidates.

The Central Information Commission on June 26th decided on a case where the CPIO denied giving the information under some section which was later found inapplicable by the commission. The commission further directed the CPIO to establish a proper foundation as to why the information was not supplied to the appellant. 

The Central Information Commission on June 25th decided on a case where the appellant was denied from receiving the information about third parties and the reason given by the CPIO was that he cannot ask for information about that organisation where he was working. The court further pronounced this claim of CPIO irrelevant and ordered the CPIO to reply within a set time limit. 

The Central Information Commission decided on a case where the appellant filed an appeal after not receiving valid information about some points mentioned in his RTI application.

The central Information commission on the date June 22nd ,2021 decided on a case where an appellant was denied from receiving information and his RTI application was not accepted while referring it to as a third party. The commission further decided that the RTI application was not given proper attention rather it was taken very lightly . Later the commission directed the CPIO to reply within a set time limit and to be very cautious with the provisions of the RTI Act.

The Central Information Commission on June 21st, 2021 decided on a case where an RTI application was filed seeking information about the complaint filed against the practicing lawyers and violation of the Advocate's Act, 1961. Here, the commission decided on the jurisdiction of the Bar Council which was raised by a respondent and, gave the decision accordingly. 

The Central Information Commission decided on a case on 19th June 2021 where the Appellant filed for an answer related to the RTI Act. According to the CPIO, the reply was submitted to the appellant but the appellant was denying this. During the time of the hearing, the Appellant was not present and the CPIO submitted all the relevant information as evidence, so the court decided to dispose of the appeal and gave consideration to CPIO's reply, and provided copies to the appellant.

The Central information commission decided on a case dated June 11th where the appellant filled more than 200 RTI applications and still didn’t receive any response from the PIO. Further, the commission directed the CPIO to be careful with matters related to RTI. Later, the commission disposed of the appeal because no interference was needed. 

The Central Information Commission decided on a case dated June 14th, 2021 where it directed the PIO to administer a reply concerning some given dates filled by the Appellant within six weeks taking necessary endorsement under section 5(4) of the RTI Act.