The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
2 Section 8(1) (a) an exemption (Case Analysis)
2.1 the same reason, photography of sensitive structures, viz. bridges and dams, is prohibit.
In the procedure of the right to information which has been grant by the court the under section 8(1) (a) have been report to be misuse use by the people. This article highlights the point studied to highlight the number of cases that have been report in the past with the relevant features to avoid the same. The Right to Information Act 2005, the RTI Act, has ushered in a radical paradigm of transparency in the functioning of the State. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RTI Act spells out, in no uncertain terms, the noble ends of the RTI Act. It provides for practical knowledge related to things in a detailed way. It is an enabling statute which gives effect to a citizen’s[1]legal right to information while balancing it against conflicting interest.
If the information requested is already substantially in the public domain, it
cannot be denied under RTI Act, s 8(1) (a). This can be justified in two ways.
First, for the exemption of RTI Act, s 8(1) (a) to apply, there must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the disclosure of the information in question, and the harm to any of the protected interests contained therein. In other words, it must be see that the very act of the disclosure of the
information would harm any of the protected interests in question. Once information is release under the RTI Act, the public authority effectively loses control over the information released.
The decision of the Delhi HC in DMRC v. Sudhir Vohra (2011)[2] is an authority on this point of law. The respondent, an architect, filed a request for information before the DMRC. “He requested that he be provided with “all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests” pertaining to the cantilever bracket of Metro Pillar No., which had collapsed on 12 July 2009, leading to the death, and injury, of many”[3]. The respondent, DMRC, argued that if the information in question is make over to the respondent, “there is a possibility of anti-national elements causing sabotage to the structures at the vulnerable points”. DMRC drew a parallel and 15 stated that, for
The information requested in DMRC v. Sudhir Vohra,[4] substantially available in the public domain, there is no public interest in withholding it, and hence, the exemption of s 8(1)(a) ceases to apply. The information sought must be disclose. The recent decision of the SC in Yashwant Sinha v. CBI (2019), part and parcel of the Rafale Deal proceedings before the SC, is an authority on this point of law. The counsel for the respondents submitted that these documents are inadmissible as, inter alia, they are even bar from disclosure under RTI Act, s 8(1)(a). “When the documents in question are already in the public domain, we do not see how the protection under Section 8(1)
(a) of the Act would serve the public interest.” Hence, the consultative process involves considering the opinion of multiple stakeholders and
making amendments to the report thereto, only after which it would become final.
The report in question is still under consideration by the respective States. She expressed an apprehension that the disclosure of the report at this pre-mature stage would harm
the scientific, and economic, interests of the State, by reason of
such disclosure giving birth to a number of counter-proposals by the civil society. The Delhi HC found this a bad argument. It quoted with approval the emphatic rebuttal of this argument by the CIC: “Mere apprehension of proposals being put forth by citizens and civil society who are furthering the cause of environment protection cannot be said to prejudicially affect the scientific and economic interests of the country”[5].
There are people who put on the letterhead the RTI consultants and
they call themselves the RTI activist which is that occupation or not? There may be going effect to search whether it is actually a job or not? We want to find a way to stop the abuse of the RTI act:
There are people who are not related to the issue of the file the RTI. It sometimes can amount to the criminal intentions or the mala fide intention of the person and
which is a nice word for blackmailing or can amount to something which is more serious in nature. The nature of providing the RTI is not wrong but there needs to have a certain
stoppage of the information which can be deliver to the people.
Again, private enterprises cannot be allowed to remain out of the ambit of the Act as they are handling public money and have been involved in scams that have a direct bearing on public life. The long tradition of secrecy in our administrative culture influenced by the colonial hangover and feudal mindset, to break
these negative influences, more stringent penal provision is need
to ensure the personal liability of the official concerned in the case of colorable refusal of Information.
This Article has been studied in past cases wherein (i) the information requested was deni under RTI Act, s 8(1) (a), and (ii) such refusal was later overturn on appeal. As noted earlier, a study of such cases has revealed a pattern of bad use cases: instances wherein a refusal to disclose the requested information under s 8(1)
(a) is bad in law. To recapitulate, according to decided cases, refusals under RTI Act, s 8(1) (a) are wrongful. This paints a clear picture of how public authorities have wrongfully taken refuge behind RTI Act, s 8(1)
(a) to refuse requests for information under the RTI Act. However, this pattern is not of academic interest alone, it will raise a strong presumption of a denial
under s 8(1)(a), in that particular case, being wrongful.
[1] Right to Information Act 2005, Statement of Objects and Reasons
[2] Delhi HC in DMRC v. Sudhir Vohra , AIR 2011 Del 167
[3] Delhi HC in DMRC v. Sudhir Vohra, (4Feb, 2021, 11:53)https://indiankanoon.org/
[4] Ibid
[5] Shri Sudhir Vohra v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Public, (fe 4, 2021, 11:57),https://www.casemine.com/
Drop your comment