sociology is a must inportent subject. all student read this subject., Study notes of Sociology

Download sociology is a must inportent subject. all student read this subject. and more Study notes Sociology in PDF only on Docsity! Introduction The Central Information commission was established in 2005 by the Government of India under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (2005). The Central Information Commission is plays an important role in maintaining transparency in the system of the governance which is essential in the democracy. Such kind of transparency is necessary to check corruption, nepotism, oppression and misuse or abuse of the authority. The Central Information Commission(CIC), a statutory body, set up under the Right to Information Act is the authorised body, established in 2005, under the Government of India to act upon complaints from those individuals who have not been able to submit information requests to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer due to either the officer not have been appointed, or because the respective Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer refused to receive the application for information under the RTI Act. The Commission includes 1 Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and not more than 10 Information Commissioners (IC) who are appointed by the President of India. The first Chief Information Commissioner of India was Wajahat Habibullah. The present Chief Information Commissioner of India is Sudhir Bhargava CIC and members are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a committee consisting of Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister. There are two woman who became CIC till now first is Ms Deepak Sandhu (4th CIC) and Second Ms Sushma Singh(5th CIC) Composition of Central Information Commission The Central Information Commission consists of the Central Information Commissioner and more than ten Information commissioners. The President of India appoints the Chief Information commissioner and the information commissioners on the recommendation of the committee consisting of the Prime Minister as chairperson, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and union cabinet ministers nominated by the Prime Minister. They should be persons of eminence in public life with experience and knowledge & Law, management, journalism, science & technology, administration & governance, mass media and social service. They should not be members of legislative assembly of any state or Union territory. They should not be connected with any political party or carrying any business, they should not hold any office of profit or pursuing any other profession. four who topped above him and where he lacked in. This examination is conducted to decide the promotion in job. Appellant contended that if the answers given by four qualified candidates are not superior to his answers, they should not be eligible to secure promotion, or if his answersheet is comparatively superior to any one of the four, he would be eligible to get promoted. He also demanded that the CPIO should justify the denial of this part of his RTI application with reasons and provisions of law, which was not done. 3. The legality of demanding answer sheet in examination is in principle upheld by Supreme Court in CBSE v Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497. The apex court held that the examinee has right to access those scripts provided that the request is made during a reasonable time in which the authorities are expected to retain the answer scripts. Statement of object as reflected in preamble of RTI Act says: ‘right of a citizen to secure the access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority’. 4. The roots of RTI are found in Article 19 of Constitution of India that guaranteed the Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Supreme Court reiterated that right to information has constitutional validity as that is enshrined right under Art 19(1)(a) in three cases: State of UP v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428, Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306 and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. the Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476. 5. Aditya Bandopadhyay, who appeared in CBSE examination, claimed that in spite of performing well in examination, he got a low result and applied to CBSE for permitting his request of revaluation and inspection of his answer sheets. His request has been rejected by CBSE who contended that inspection of answer book was not permissible under bye-laws of CBSE examination. The CBSE claimed that every year 12 to 13 lakh students across the country appeared for the examination and it will lead to chaos and huge inconvenience if inspection and/or revaluation is provided to these students. CBSE cited the judgement of SC in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Seth, (1984) 4 SCC 27. The CBSE contended that they held the answer book of its students in a fiduciary relationship and thus it is exempted from disclosure for being fiduciary in nature as per S. 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. 6. R.V. Ravindran J who authored the landmark order (Aditya Bandhopadhyay) held that answer book written by a candidate and submitted to examining body for evaluation is a ‘document or record’ and the evaluated answer book by the examiner appointed by examining body is the ‘opinion’ of the examiner. Thus, the evaluated answer book is an ‘information’ under RTI Act. And this answer book also does not fall under any of the exemption provided under (a) to (j) of subsection 1 of Section 8 of RTI Act. Thus, every examinee has a right to inspect the evaluated answer book and if needed can take certified copies thereof under RTI Act. 7. The Supreme Court held that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answerbooks in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer- books. As no other exemption under Section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees. 8. The Chandigarh High Court in Kewal Singh Gautam v State of Chhattisgarh & ors, AIR 2011 Chh 143, examined whether this information could be personal information of anybody and held: 14. In for far as the other reason for rejection of the application, invoking the provision contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005, that the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual is concerned, the same is equally misconceived in law and deserves rejection. In a case where such personal information has relationship to any public activity or interest, exemption could not be claimed. .... Moreover, this Court has no hesitation in saying that the conduct of examination in the present case by the departmental agency for the purposes of promotion from lower rank to higher rank in Govt. department, are not private activities, but in public domain.... It also cannot be said that said disclosure of information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of some individual. ...The checking and evaluation of answer sheet by an examiner and the marks given by him upon assessment of performance has nothing to do with the privacy of either the examiner or those who are responsible for conducting the examination. 9. In the case of Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian (https://indiankanoon org/doc/916458/), where one employee sought information pertaining to documents relating to domestic enquiry against another employee and also for getting entries in confidential report of six other employees of the appellant, repelling the claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005,the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala held that provision of Section 8(1)(j) are not attracted. It was held that the confidential reports of employees managed by the employer cannot be treated to be records pertaining to personal information of an employee, disclosure of which can be said to be exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The case of the petitioners in the two petitions in hand, stands on a much better footing. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of petitioners application for supply of certified copies of their assessed/evaluated answer sheet is illegal as no exemption could be claimed under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. 10. A question remains is whether a candidate could seek the answersheet of other candidates? In CBSE case [2011(8) SCALE 645] the SC said no, but on certain practical issues. The CBSE pleaded that if it has to share certified copies of answer-sheets of other to each and every candidate seeking under RTI, it would lead to chaos and divert substantial resources. In Union Public Service Commission vs Angesh Kumar the Supreme Court Bench of UU Lalit and AK Goel, JJ held on 20 February, 2018, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153104514/, the appellant sought information in the form of cut-off marks for every subject, scaling methodology, model answers and complete result of all candidates. Its huge information and difficult for anybody to cull out and give. Hence it was refused. It reached the apex court. The Supreme Court based on purposive interpretation said: In interpreting the scheme of the Act, this Court has read inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 based on the Third Recital in the Preamble to the Act, i.e., And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;