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 advocates cannot file RTI applications on behalf of clients, reinforcing personal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
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 mandates resumption of proactive disclosure of Prasar Bharati Board minutes, reinforcing transparency under 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CIC holds that queries seeking justification for administrative decisions-such as why an advisory was issued or withdrawn-are not 'information' under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
CIC holds that personal information can be disclosed under RTI Act when court orders maintenance recovery, even without third-party consent under Section 8(1)(j).
Telangana High Court upholds students' right to re-verification of answer sheets after marginal failure in MBBS exams, citing RTI Act and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
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.
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 holds that tender details including bidder names, contract amounts, and payments must be proactively disclosed under Section 4 of RTI Act to ensure transparency and reduce reliance on RTI applications.
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.