Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Central Information Commission rules CPIO not obligated to disclose information under RTI Act, suggests seeking legal counsel. The Central Information Commission ruled that the CPIO was not obligated to disclose information sought by the Appellant under the RTI Act regarding ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Central Information Commission rules CPIO not obligated to disclose information under RTI Act, suggests seeking legal counsel.
The Central Information Commission ruled that the CPIO was not obligated to disclose information sought by the Appellant under the RTI Act regarding queries related to a SEBI case. The Commission emphasized that the CPIO's role is to provide existing records, not opinions, and suggested the Appellant seek legal counsel for such queries. Despite disagreeing with the CPIO's reasoning based on the case being sub judice, the Commission upheld the decision, concluding that no disclosure was required. The case was disposed of with copies of the order provided to the parties at no cost.
Issues Involved: The issue involved in this case is the right of the Appellant to obtain information from the CPIO u/s RTI Act, specifically regarding queries related to a case filed by SEBI against him.
Summary: In this judgment by the Central Information Commission, the Appellant had raised queries seeking the opinion of the CPIO on the legality of SEBI's actions in a case filed against him. The CPIO had responded that since the matter was sub judice and all records were with the court, the Appellant should obtain information from the court. The Appellant appealed this decision, but the Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's stand.
The Appellant argued for his right to the information sought, while the respondent reiterated that the court should decide on disclosure due to the pending nature of the case and the records already submitted. The Commission noted that the queries were more about seeking opinions rather than factual information. It emphasized that the CPIO can only provide existing records, not create new ones to address specific queries. The Commission stated that legal counsel would be better suited to address the Appellant's queries seeking opinions.
Consequently, the Commission ruled that the CPIO was not required to disclose any information in this case, despite disagreeing with the reasons given by the CPIO for non-disclosure based on the matter being sub judice. The case was disposed of accordingly, with copies of the order provided to the parties free of cost.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
