PIO not required to provide clarification or opinion

CIC has observed that the information sought is clarificatory in nature and the CPIO is not bound to give clarification/opinion under the RTI Act in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 Ram Niwas vs. CPIO, M/o Railways SA No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2018/121641 DD […]

Applicant fails to get clarification regarding ‘VIPs’

Appellant had sought information as to which officials are considered as VIPs. PIO stated that he was not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve problems raised by the appellant or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarification. CIC upheld the stand of the PIO and has relied […]

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 […]

RTI does not provide seeking “clarification” 

Complainant had sought information regarding the meaning of “Static HQrs” used in reference to the Central Armed Police Forces. CPIO submitted that the information sought was clarificatory in nature and  is not covered within the definition of ’information’ as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the CPIO under the mandate […]

RTI Act does not provide seeking clarification

Appellant’s stand was that he was provided with incorrect and misleading information in response to his RTI application. CPIO stated that the appellant was seeking clarification/interpretation from him, which he is not obliged to provide under the RTI Act. CIC observed that under the RTI Act, CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification as the […]

Clarification not permissible under RTI Act

Appellant stated that a Section Officer in GOI has two pay bands applicable to the post i.e. PB 2 and PB 3 and he wanted clarification as to which pay band would be applicable in his case. PIO stated that the information sought was clarificatory in nature and hence, will not be covered under the […]

Interpretation of rules not possible under RTI

PIO’s stand was that the applicant had sought interpretation of rules but it did not fall within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act . CIC has held that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. […]

Applicant is not entitled to “clarifications”

Appellant had sought from the Ministry of Home Affairs information on three points including (i) whether the State Government which is the licensing authority to issue dealers license can extend the existing quantity of arms and ammunition permitted in the license, (ii) which section of Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 1962 can clarify the […]

RTI doesn’t enable seeking clarification

Appellant wanted to know whether the amendment to rule 9 of chapter-III Rules Governing advocates is prospective/ retrospective etc. CIC has observed that the appellant is asking for clarification which is not mandated under RTI Act.

RTI Act does not permit seeking clarification

Applicant had sought information/clarification regarding words “legal consequence” written by DCP. The respondent submitted that the appellant had sought clarifications which cannot be provided under the RTI Act. CIC observed that under the RTI Act, the appellant cannot seek clarifications/opinions/views of the CPIO as the same does not qualify to be “information” under Section 2(f) of […]