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).
The Central Information Commission holds that hypothetical questions about insurance policy interpretations are not 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC holds that queries seeking justification for administrative decisions-such as why an advisory was issued or withdrawn-are not 'information' under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Central Information Commission holds that non-response to RTI applications constitutes gross violation of RTI Act, 2005, warranting penalty proceedings against CPIO.
CIC clarifies that under Section 18 RTI Act, it lacks power to direct disclosure of information; jurisdiction is limited to imposing penalties for deliberate denial.
CIC clarifies that Section 18 complaints cannot substitute the mandatory appellate process under Section 19 of RTI Act. Failure to reply triggers penalty proceedings.
CIC clarifies that public authorities need not generate or collate information beyond existing records, nor adjudicate appointment disputes under RTI Act. Key precedent cited.
Telangana High Court holds that students have a statutory right under RTI Act to inspect and obtain certified copies of evaluated answer scripts, overriding institutional rules.
Madras High Court holds that authorities must disclose administrative documents upon request, affirming natural justice and procedural fairness under Article 226.
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.
CIC holds that Section 18 of RTI Act only permits penalty for deliberate denial of information; bonafide delay with eventual disclosure warrants no action.
The Central Information Commission holds that failure to respond to RTI applications within stipulated time, without valid reason, violates Section 7(1) and warrants corrective action.
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 RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to create information, provide advice, or respond to grievances disguised as information requests.