The Central Information Commission holds that applicants cannot compel public authorities to provide copies of their own application forms under RTI Act, 2005, as such documents are not 'information' within Section 2(f).
CIC holds that RTI applications seeking justification for administrative decisions fall outside Section 2(f) definition of 'information', reinforcing that RTI cannot be used for grievance redressal.
The Central Information Commission holds that hypothetical questions about insurance policy interpretations are not 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Central Information Commission holds that public authorities must conduct a diligent search for RTI-requested records and file an affidavit if records are untraceable, reinforcing transparency obligations under the RTI Act.
CIC clarifies that public authorities need not generate or collate information beyond existing records, nor adjudicate appointment disputes under RTI Act. Key precedent cited.
The Central Information Commission holds that public authorities cannot invoke RTI Act exemptions for the first time during appeal; initial reply must state grounds for denial.
The Central Information Commission holds that patients have a right to obtain complete medical records under RTI Act, including nursing notes and diagnostic reports, even from public hospitals.
Central Information Commission holds that mere invocation of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act is insufficient; public authorities must demonstrate actual impediment to investigation.
CIC holds that cooperative societies like Bannu Biradari CGHS Ltd. are not public authorities under Section 2(h) of RTI Act, rendering second appeals non-maintainable.
CIC holds that RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to create information, provide advice, or respond to grievances disguised as information requests.
The Central Information Commission holds that repetitive, harassing RTI applications by public employees undermine the Act's purpose and constitute misuse, not a fundamental right.
Bombay High Court holds that cooperative banks are not public authorities under RTI Act, clarifying scope of disclosure obligations and limiting access to internal governance records.
CIC holds that failure to respond to RTI applications within 30 days violates statutory duty and exposes officials to penalties under Section 20. Clear directives issued for compliance.
The Central Information Commission holds that public authorities cannot evade RTI obligations by transferring applications; they must proactively obtain information from other offices within stipulated time.
The Central Information Commission holds that CCTV footage qualifies as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, overturning a flawed exemption claim.