Exemption under 8(1)(J) is NOT allowed under certain cases

Larger Public Interest versus 

Unwarranted invasion of Privacy

i.e., Exemption under u/s 8(1)(j) 

of RTI Act, 2005

LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST VERSUS UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY i.e., EXEMPTION UNDER 8(1)(J) OF RTI ACT 2005

If a person lies in court on sworn affidavit then it is in the larger public interest to disclose the lies and if the public authority chooses to protect such lies then the public authority is said to be in connivance with the person who has lied on sworn affidavit in an India court. Provided further that, the public authority shall not disclose such information to a third party if the PIO/ Public authority feels that the information provided by the RTI applicant is fabricated or for this purpose the public authority shall duly send a communication to the person whose information is sought & ask for a show cause notice as to whether the documents attached by the RTI applicant are genuine or not and why his/her information shall not be disclosed in the larger public interest as lying in court on sworn affidavit is against the public interest. And therefore to expose those lies is well within the ambit of larger public interest.

Further, in the larger public interest it is informed to this Hon’ble PIO that a person named JHOOTHI DEVI R/o AZ-747, Rani Bagh, New Delhi – 110034 gave affidavit to court & on page 13 para 5 that she does not have a passport. . . .  (Annexure 1 is certified copy from court with that line highlighted). Also the certified copy from court of her complete affidavit of 14 pages is annexed as annexure 2 to 15 for your kind perusal. Provided further that the RTI applicant allows the public authority to either send the information directly to him or to the concerned Hon’ble Court of Ld MM Ms. Joshila Devi Surtalwala Dwarka Courts Case no.15/7/16 JHOOTHI DEVI Versus ATUR CHATUR & ors in larger public interest.

FAè Pointwise reply not provided. Please provide pointwise reply. Since a person holding two government identity cards with two different names is a criminal offence & the same had been disclosed to the PIO via proofs annexed with the concerned RTI request hence it comes within the larger public interest & PIO shall have disclosed information to all those questions which the PIO feels come under larger public interest but he did not paid attention to those & outrightly rejected the RTI with an equivocate response which possibly hints favors or something else known best to the concerned PIO. This also presents clearly before the FAA the half-heartedly nature of the PIO in handling the RTI’s. The PIO provided equivocate answers & did not bothered to forward part of queries (if any) which related to any other PIO u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act’2005.

 (ATUR CHATUR)

C/o   Q-7/77, GF, Sector-30, Rohini, Delhi-110085

Email:          aturchatur@yahoo.com

Phone:                         09873540498