TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission orders file inspection balancing transparency & sensitive info protection under RTI Act</h1> <h3>ASHOK KUMAR LAHIRI Versus B. THAMAR, ADG & CPIO, DG OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & CE.</h3> ASHOK KUMAR LAHIRI Versus B. THAMAR, ADG & CPIO, DG OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & CE. - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 359 (CIC) Issues:1. RTI request to inspect a specific file.2. CPIO's decision to decline information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act.3. Upholding of CPIO's decision by the Appellate Authority.4. Appeal to the Commission against the Appellate Authority's decision.5. Arguments presented by the appellant and respondents.6. Commission's decision on disclosure and inspection of the file.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an RTI request to inspect file number O3/EZU/Vig/2002, related to an enquiry against him. The CPIO declined the request citing exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.2. The Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's decision, noting the appellant's contentions regarding the source of information leading to the enquiry against him. The Authority refrained from commenting on the appellant's submissions and focused on the admissibility under the RTI Act.3. During the hearing before the Commission, the appellant reiterated that the enquiry was initiated by a specific individual, identified as a 'rogue exporter/trader.' The respondents argued that the enquiry was based on multiple pieces of information and not solely on the mentioned individual.4. The Commission acknowledged the sensitivity of the information in the file but emphasized that disclosure could be made after applying Section 10(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the respondents to allow the appellant to inspect the file within two weeks, withholding information that falls under the exemption clauses of Section 8(1)(g) or any other relevant section.5. The Commission clarified that while certain parts of the file may be exempt from disclosure, withholding the entire file is not justified, especially when the investigation is concluded. The decision aimed to balance transparency with the protection of sensitive information.6. The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to facilitate the inspection of the file while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act regarding exempt information.
TaxTMI 