RTI Act does not enable seeking clarification

The appellant wanted to know as to why he was not considered for appointment to the post of Railway Sub Inspector. PIO’s stand was that the appellant had sought information in the form of a query that is not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/S 2(f) of the RTI Act. CIC., following the decision of the Supreme Court in CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay – 2011 (8) SCC 497 observed that the appellant is seeking clarification which is not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that the CPIO is not expected to give advice/interpretation to the appellant

SA No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2018/115657 DD 29-11-2019 Vidya Sagar vs. CPIO, M/O. Railways, Northern Railway,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *