Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
His attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as
under:
The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about
the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available
and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish
information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of
assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an
applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to
an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of
`information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material
available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities
have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to
5
the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with
any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
Also, with regards to applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act
against information sought for, the Commission would also like to bring attention
of the Appellant towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal
No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 while explaining the import
of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to
the above discussed judgments and observed as under:
1