S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

Case Study : Sarabjit Singh V. Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA)

Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2007/00192 Dated 23-03-2007

2017-2018

RTI

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO :

NAME : GAURAV KUMAR SHARMA Prof. MS. NIVEDITA SONI

CLASS : B.A. L.L.B. IInd yr. IIIrd semester

SECTION : B

ROLL NO : 9
 Case Study : Sarabjit Singh V.

Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA)

Complaint No.-

CIC/WB/C/2007/00192

Dated 23-03-2007
 DECLARATION

I, Gaurav kumar Sharma, do hereby declare that, this dissertation titled " Case Study : Sarabjit Singh V.
Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA) Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2007/00192 Dated 23-03-2007" is an
outcome of the research conducted by me under the guidance of Prof. MS NIVEDITA SONI
(Asst. Prof. of law) at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College in fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.L.L.B.
at the University of Rajasthan .

I also declare that, this work is original , except where assistance from other sources has been taken and
necessary acknowledgements for the same have been made at appropriate places. I further declare that, this
work has not been submitted either in whole or in part , for any degree or equivalent in any other institution.

Date: 13-01-2018

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(i)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge with profundity, my obligation to almighty god and my parents for giving me the grace to
accomplish my work, without which this project would not have been possible.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my respected faculty, Prof. MS NIVEDITA SONI (asst. prof. of law) for
providing me with valuable suggestions to complete this dissertation.

I am especially grateful to all my faculty members at SS Jain Subodh Law College who have helped me
imbibe the basic research and writing skills.

Lastly, I take upon myself, the drawbacks and limitations of this study, if any.

Date: 13-01-2018

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(ii)
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the project work on the topic “Case Study : Sarabjit Singh V. Ministry Of Home Affairs
(MHA) Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2007/00192 Dated 23-03-2007” submitted by GAURAV KUMAR
SHARMA for the partial fulfillment of the degree B.A. L.L.B IIInd semester offered by the S.S. Jain
Subodh Law College during the academic year 2017-2018 is an original work carried out by the student
under my supervision and this work has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, or such
other titles.

Prof. MS NIVEDITA SONI

Asst. prof. of law

S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPIC

1. INTRODUCTION
2. RTI IN DIGITAL INDIA
3. APPEAL
4. PENALTIES
5. Case Study : Sarabjit Singh V. Ministry Of
Home Affairs (MHA) Complaint No.-
CIC/WB/C/2007/00192 Dated 23-03-2007

(iv)
 INTRODUCTION

Right to Information (RTI) is an Act of the Parliament of India to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens and replaces the erstwhile Freedom of information Act, 2002. Under the
provisions of the Act, any citizen of India may request information from a "public authority" (a body of
Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The
Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to
proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for
information formally.
This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. The first
application was given to a Pune police station. Information disclosure in India was restricted by the Official
Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act relaxes. It codifies a fundamental
right of citizens.

Scope
The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to Information Act is in
force. It covers all the constitutional authorities, including executive, legislature and judiciary; any
institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined
in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate
government including bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed" by government, or non-
Government organizations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds"

Private bodies
Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly. In a decision of Sarbjit roy vs Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission,   the Central Information Commission  also reaffirmed that privatised public utility
companies fall within the purview of RTI.[2] As of 2014, private institutions and NGOs receiving over 95% of
their infrastructure funds from the government come under the Act.[3] Right to Information Act 2005
mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. It is an initiative taken by
Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a
RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate
Authorities, PIOs etc. amongst others, besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on
the web by various Public Authorities under the Government of India as well as the State Governments.

Political parties
The Central Information Commission (CIC), consisting of Satyanand Mishra, M.L. Sharma and Annapurna
Dixit, has held that the political parties are public authorities and are answerable to citizens under the RTI
Act. The CIC, a quasi-judicial body, has said that six national parties
- Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI and BSP and BJD - has been substantially funded indirectly by the
Central Government and have the character of public authorities under the RTI Act as they perform public
functions In August 2013 the government introduced a Right To Information (Amendment) Bill which
would remove political parties from the scope of the law. In September 2013 the Bill was deferred to the
Winter Session of Parliament. In December 2013 the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel said in its
report tabled in Parliament.
The Right to information in India has been mired with controversies ranging from their use in political
battles asking opponent degrees, or cases of blatant refusals to provide information on high profile projects
to allegations of misuse by civil society.
The Right to information in India is governed by two major bodies viz.
Central Information Commission (CIC) – Chief Information commissioner who heads all the central
departments and ministries- with their own public Information officers (PIO)s. CICs are directly under the
President of India.
State Information Commissions-State Public Information Officers or SPIOs – Heading over all the state
department and ministries the SPIO office is directly under the State Governor.
State and Central Information Commissions are independent bodies and Central Information Commission
has no jurisdiction over the State Information Commission.
Digital Right to Information System
Though there are recent efforts on digital governance, Right to Information has seen a neglect even after 11
years of its enactment.
A recent research on ballotboxIndia [13] outlines that thought central ministries are covered by a single
Digital window to file Right to Information requests with integrated payment gateways, and tracking
mechanism. None of the states have yet came forward to implement their versions or use the existing Right
to Information Digital Infrastructure.
The research report[13] covering 29 states and union territories also highlights the responses from the SPIOs
(State Public Information Officers).
Researchers in the study focussed on the Digital implementation and asked about plans or timeline to
provide such facility. 64% State Public Information failed to respond. Rest of them merely took cognizance
without any hard timelines.
The research also covers in details- the difficulty in filing manual Right to Information requests with the
states with delays ranging many months of wait time and various follow ups and rejections.[14]
Every state in India has different rules and fee structures to file an application through registered post
without any tracking mechanism as covered in details in the report.[13] Which puts Right to Information in
India riddled with inefficiencies.
 19. Appeal.

Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (/) or clause (a) of sub-
section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or
from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the
appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section shall lie Within ninety days from the date on
which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or
the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period
of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in
time. Right to Information Act, 2005 (Chapter V.—Powers and functions of the Information Commissions,
appeal and penalties.)

(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information
Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to that third party.

(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the
request.

(6) An appeal under sub-section (/) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of
the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing
thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may
be, shall be binding.

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may
be, has the power to— (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure
compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and
destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (/) of section 4; (b)
require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c)
impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; (d) reject the application. (9) The Central Information
Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision,
including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority. (/0) The Central Information
Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance
with such procedure as may be prescribed.
 20. Penalties.

Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the
time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive
an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section
(/) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading inthrmation or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or,obstructed in any
manner in fumishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not
exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: 16 Right to Information Act, 2005 (Chapter V.—Powers and fiinctions
of the Information Commissions, appeal and penalties. Chapter VI—Miscellaneous.) Provided that the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that
the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently,
failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (/) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in fumishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action
against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
under the service rules applicable to him.
 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint No CIC/WB/C/2007/00192
dated 23.03.2007 Right to Information Act 2005-Section 19

Complainant: Shri Sarabjit Singh

Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)

Decision

The Commission has received an application from Shri Sarabjit Singh of Kotkapura Punjab that his request
for information under RTI Act-2005 seeking copy of a complaint, enquiry and findings in a dowry offence
case submitted to the Jt Commissioner of Police (JCP), Crime (Women’s Cell) Nanakpura New Delhi has
not been responded to, even though the same was duly submitted along with the requisite fee dated
23.01.2007. The Commission has decided to admit this application as a complaint petition u/s 18 of the said
Act and hereby directs the CPIO, Jt Commissioner of Police (JCP), Crime (Women’s Cell) MHA to provide
the information sought to applicant Shri Sarabjit Singh within 10 working days from the date of receipt of
this decision. The CPIO is directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date
when the information became due i.e. 23.02.’07; to the date when the information is actually supplied, not
exceeding Rs.25, 000/-, should not be imposed on him/her under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO
may submit his/her written submission in this regard to this Commission on or before 10.01.2007.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of
the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(PK Shreyaskar) Jt. Registrar 24.12.2007

(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24.12.2007

 www.meritnation.com
 www.iasbaba.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com

  http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_30112006_12.pdf
 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-03/news/30238465_1_rti-act-public-information-officer-pio . Mi
ssing or empty |title= (help)
  Nayak, N. Dinesh.  "Private institutions, NGOs now come under RTI Act: Information
Commissioner". thehindu.com.
  PTI. "Khurshid sounds warning note on R.T.I ruling".  The Hindu. Archived from  the original on 10 June 2013.
Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  PTI. "Political parties under RTI: Congress rejects CIC order". The Hindu Newspaper. Archived from  the
original on 27 October 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  Subrahmaniam, Vidya (12 August 2013).  "First-ever amendment to historic RTI Act tabled in Lok Sabha".  The
Hindu. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
  "Bill to amend RTI Act deferred to Winter Session". thehindubusinessline.com. Retrieved 13 September 2013.
  "Parliament panel backs Bill to keep parties out of RTI". Press Trust of India
  "PM Modi degree issue: HC stays CIC order on 1978 DU records".  The Indian Express. 2017-01-24.
Retrieved 2017-02-11
(v)