<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; : Know the Law</title>
    <link>https://legalframe.in/rss/category/know-the-law</link>
    <description>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; : Know the Law</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator></dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>
    <item>
        <title>RTI Appeal Dismissed by CIC for Seeking Flight Schedule Data Already in Public Domain</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/rti-appeal-dismissed-by-cic-for-seeking-flight-schedule-data-already-in-public-domain</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/rti-appeal-dismissed-by-cic-for-seeking-flight-schedule-data-already-in-public-domain</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ On 6 January 2020, the Central Information Commission (CIC) delivered its decision in case File No: CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/142150, concerning an RTI application filed by Anupkumar Ramanarayan Sony. The appellant had sought details of flight numbers, operating airlines, and actual departure times for flights from Mumbai to Indore on 13 April 2018, including a full list of flights within 24 hours.
The RTI was originally submitted on 23 April 2018, but no reply was received from the CPIOs of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appellant filed a first appeal on 20 May 2018, which also went unanswered. A second appeal was then submitted on 28 June 2018.
During the hearing conducted via video conferencing, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his application. Representatives from both AAI and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. were present. The private airport operator stated that a written submission had already been sent to the CIC with a copy marked to the appellant.
Upon reviewing the records, Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha observed that the information requested—flight schedules—is readily available in the public domain. He criticized the misuse of the RTI mechanism for acquiring such publicly accessible data, noting it unnecessarily burdened the resources of the AAI and the Commission.
As a result, the Commission dismissed the appeal, citing that such use of RTI wasted public resources and conflicted with the ongoing digitalization efforts of the country.
Citation:
Central Information Commission, Decision dated 06/01/2020, File No: CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/142150. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:25:54 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Provide action taken report on complaint under RTI; CIC</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/provide-action-taken-report-on-complaint-under-rti-cic</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/provide-action-taken-report-on-complaint-under-rti-cic</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ Summary:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma filed two identical RTI applications dated 11.03.2017 with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, seeking information regarding action taken on complaints he had made to the Ministry of Finance and the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Bank. Dissatisfied with the responses from the CPIO (22.03.2017) and the First Appellate Authority (29.04.2017), he filed second appeals (01.05.2017) before the Central Information Commission (CIC). A hearing was conducted on 28.12.2018.
The appellant contended that he was not informed about the action taken against the officials named in his complaints and that information was wrongly denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondents claimed that status reports and related communications had already been provided and that further information such as investigation reports was exempt under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j), as it involved third-party confidential information.
The Commission, citing the Delhi High Court judgment in Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur &amp; Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016, held that a complainant has the right to know the outcome of their complaint but not the detailed internal deliberations. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (SLP (C) No. 27734/2012), confirming that disciplinary proceedings documents are personal information and exempt from disclosure.
Directions:
•	The CPIO was directed to provide the appellant with specific information regarding what action was taken on his complaints within four weeks from receipt of the order.
•	However, information such as inquiry reports and internal notings was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) due to privacy concerns.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partially allowed with directions to disclose the action taken but not the confidential inquiry reports. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:24:10 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>