Delhi Government To Put All Info Online To Ensure Transparency: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal

File RTI Online

The portal, designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), enables the citizens to file the RTI applications pertaining to 172 departments of the Delhi government.


Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today said the Delhi government would put all relevant information online to ensure transparency in its functioning. Launching e-RTI portal at the Delhi Secretariat, Mr Kejriwal said the government also plans to upload all RTI replies on the portal to ensure there was no repetition of applications.

The portal, designed by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), enables the citizens to file the RTI applications pertaining to 172 departments of the Delhi government.

“Today is a historic day as people won’t need to visit government’s office to file RTI applications. There is a need to take the Right to Information to the next level.

“We will try to put all information pertaining to the government’s work in the public domain, which affects people’s life and helps in bettering transparency,” Mr Kejriwal said.

He said if the government puts all information online, people’s won’t need to then file RTI applications.

With the launch of the e-RTI portal (, Delhi became the first union territory to put in place such a system, and the second after Maharashtra to launch the online RTI platform.
Giving an example, Mr Kejriwal said that if the concerned department puts daily sales reports of the ration shops online, people won’t have to file RTIs to seek information.

“People of respective areas would be able to straightaway verify the claims. Similarly, if the PWD puts measurement book and bills of all work in public domain, it will make the system transparent,” he said.

The e-RTI portal also enables citizens to make fee of RTI application through Net banking. An applicant would also be able to track the status of the RTI application.

172 nodal officers have been appointed for monitoring e- RTI portal. If an applicant doesn’t not mention the name of concerned department in the application, the nodal officer would forward the same to the concerned person.


Notice to cop for not giving information under RTI Act

RTI Application Form

The state information commission, Haryana, has issued a show-cause notice to assistant commissioner of police (headquarters) here for not providing information under the RTI Act to a local resident of Sector 16 and also asked him to appear before it.
According to a complaint filed by Lalit Gupta, an advocate, Gupta in his complaint informed the commission that he had purchased a second hand Aviator from Vinod and Shiva, dealers based in Chandigarh.He alleged that the delivery was made in Panchkula through an impersonator, who posed as the original owner. Gupta further said that the papers were found fake and the dealers could not provide original papers for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. On June 20, 2016, Gupta made a complaint to the Sector 16 police post Panchkula, but to no avail.
On August 29, 2016, Gupta asked for information under the RTI Act regarding the status of his complaint and statements recorded but the cops failed to provide the same to Gupta and on October 15, 2016, he filed an appeal before the commissioner, who forwarded it to DCP, Panchkula. Following this, on November 25, 2016, the ACP provided some information to the complainant almost after 90 days. On December 1, 2016, the DCP ordered that Gupta be provided with the information but the ACP failed to do so.
Gupta then filed a second appeal on December 30, 2016, before the commission, mentioning that the ACP wilfully did not supply the information.
State information commissioner Samir Mathur in the order stated that the ACP had given the assurance that he would provide the information by May 31 to Gupta. The commission noted that there had been delay in providing information and when provided it was incomplete. Therefore, it asked the SPIO to reply to the show-cause notice by June 15 and appear before it on June 29.

You can access A-G’s opinion through RTI

RTI Application Form

You may now be able to access the Advocate General’s (A-G) opinion given to the government on matters of public interest such as reservation, dance bar, metro fare hike, and dahi handi under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

The Maharashtra State Information commission (SIC) has set aside a blanket ban of the state government to not provide information about the A-G’s opinion to applicants. The State had cited a Bombay High Court (HC) order to deny such information under RTI. Though not binding on other SICs or Central Information Commission (CIC), orders of any SIC are often used as case studies to argue for a judgment in one’s favour.

In an order dated July 11, 2017, Ajit Kumar Jain, state information commissioner (Brihanmumbai Bench) asked the government to provide one such opinion that was given to the government. The opinion was on a minister’s office coming under RTI. State government had sought the A-G’s opinion on it after the former chief commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad, had passed an order last year that a minister’s office comes under RTI.

Opinions of lawyers or A-Gs are also denied by public authorities, citing section 8 (1) (e) of the act that pertains to fiduciary relationship. “I remember a decision I had given when a university refused to give a lawyer’s opinion saying it was in fiduciary capacity,” said Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner. “I had asked for the information to be released. A lawyer is obligated to not give out information about his customer, but that cannot be the case with the customer.”

DNA had sought information on the A-G’s opinion, along with other details, before the SIC order of appointing a Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) was implemented by the government. The request was refused by the government.

Recently, the issue of A-GI was in news for being under the ambit of RTI. “The CIC decided in our favor that the A-GI office is a public authority as it is constituted under RTI. Even single bench of Delhi HC ruled in our favour but division bench over turned it. We have now approached SC,” said Delhi based Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the applicant in A-GI case.

The 2015 Bombay HC order that the General Administration Department (GAD) cited, stated that: “We are of the considered view that unless it is required to be disclosed considering the overwhelming public interest, the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General must be kept confidential.” It went on to state that “Apart from circulating a copy of the order to all the departments, a copy thereof be forwarded to the chief secretary of the state government to enable him to issue the appropriate directions.”

GAD, to which the chief minister’s office passed the RTI application, stated that HC has barred AG’s opinion to be given. GAD did not mention any section of the RTI Act while denying such information. During the hearing, it also cited an opinion of law and judiciary department which was sought to deny AG’s opinion in another matter.

The commission observed: “As per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, opinions that are part of record, is part of definition of information (under RTI). The court order that the PIO has cited states that besides matters of overwhelming public interest, opinion of the A-G should be kept secret.” It further observed that appointing of PIO and FAA in ministers’ office is a matter of public interest and providing such information also does not violate section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act which states “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.



From : dnaindia

CMJ University lost its status as University in October 2013…

CMJ University lost its status as University in 2013. October 01..
CMJ University lost its status as University in 2013. October 01..

The UGC and Meghalaya Government has withdrawn its approval to the Chandra Mohan Jha University (CMJ) as deemed university..
It came into existence in 2009, afterwards it was under flacks for awarding illegitimate degrees to students at Ph.D and M.Phil levels..
Approx 1479 degrees have been found to be distributed by the university,in violation of the UGC norms of minimum Standards for institutions awarding degrees to students.
It has come to an end in October 2013…
Here is the Photocopy of the RTI reply given by the UGC in this regards…

Supreme Court Trashes National Judicial Appointment Bill…

Supreme Court Trashes National Judicial Appointment Bill…

Says Unconstitutional.


It is extraordinary that there should be near-unanimity in the country that the present system of judicial appointments that was put in place in 1993 is deeply unsatisfactory, and yet the most significant legislative effort to reform it should fail before the Supreme Court. It is no surprise that a five-judge Bench has struck down the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, by which the government established a National Judicial Appointments Commission to select members of the higher judiciary. There were doubts whether the composition of the NJAC, especially the inclusion in it of the Union Law Minister and two “eminent persons” appointed by the government, would survive judicial scrutiny. For, the law also gave any two members a veto over all decisions, raising the question whether the judicial members could be overruled by the executive representatives. The Attorney General could not convince the court that the amendment, along with the NJAC Act, was aimed at restoring the system of checks and balances which, according to the government, was lost after the Supreme Court created the collegium scheme of appointments. The core question was whether the new institutional mechanism to appoint judges impinged on the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution. The court has ruled that it does. Justice J.S. Khehar, writing the main judgment, has held that the clauses provided in the amendment are inadequate to preserve the primacy of the judiciary. The inclusion of the Law Minister in the body impinged on both the independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers.

Nobody on either side of the debate disagrees that the judiciary should be insulated from political interference. Yet, should the judiciary retain its primacy, or should the executive have a say in order that flawed choices do not erode the institution’s credibility? Justice Khehar has said the conduct of the political executive showed it tended to reward favourites in many fields. Preserving the primacy of the judiciary was a safe way to shield the institution from “the regime of the spoils system”. Justice J. Chelameswar, in his dissenting opinion, is candid in questioning the lack of transparency in the collegium system. Even while restoring this system, the majority has invited suggestions to improve it so that it is more responsive to the expectations of civil society. While to some it may appear that striking down a Constitution amendment passed unanimously in both Houses of Parliament and ratified by 20 State Assemblies amounts to negating the people’s will, it cannot be forgotten that the judiciary remains the sole authority to decide whether a law violates the basic structure of the Constitution. What the situation indicates is that India is still struggling to put together a transparent appointment system not vitiated by executive patronage or judicial nepotism.