Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V.MENON
Principal, SVRHM Medical College, Nemom, Thriuvananthapuram – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commission, Represented By Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the rti application process and the initial response. (Para 1) |
| 2. final conclusion and outcome of the writ petition. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding the validity of the ext.p12 order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. identification of issues for consideration in the writ petition. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. observations on the statutory provisions of the rti act and the roles of the state information commission. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. establishment of the ratio regarding the separate roles of the state information commissioner and the state information commission. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 7. sustainability of ext.p12 considering the principles of quorum. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. discussion on the imposition of penalties and authority for inquiries under the rti act. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners are stated to be the Principal and State Public Information Officer (SPIO) attached to a college. The 3rd respondent herein presented an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the 2nd petitioner seeking information regarding admissions made in 2021 and those admitted to the college. The 2nd petitioner, in his capacity as the SPIO, gave Ex
The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased,....
Right to Information - Required fee and produce challan receipt - Section 7(3)(b) says about the details to be mentioned in intimation, including details of appellate authority, time limit etc.
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.
The Information Commission must inquire into complaints regarding misleading information under the RTI Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
