The following are among the major decisions of the CIC:
¤ The CIC directed the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) to declare individual marks scored by 2,400candidates who appearedfor the Civil ServicesPreliminary examinationsin 2006 and ordered it to declare cut-off marks for each subject. (CIC/WB order, November 13, 2006)
¤ In the case of Paramveer Singh vs. Punjab University, the applicant applied for information regarding the merit list for selection of candidates to a particular post in the university.
However, no proper information was provided. The Commission held that every public authority, must take all measures for efficient record management systems in their offices so that the requests for information can be dealt with promptly and accurately.
¤ In the case of Shyam Yadav vs. Department of Personnel and Training, the applicant had sought details of property statements filed by bureaucrats (CIC/WB/A/2009/000669, June 17, 2009).The Commission held that property statements filed by civil servants are not confidential and information can be disclosed after taking the views of concerned officials as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
¤ In case of Ram Bhaj vs. Delhi Government, the appellant has sought information about whether the guidelines which the Department of Personnel and Training issued regarding disposal of public grievances with a specific time frame have been notified by the Delhi Government (CIC/SG/A/2010/000537+000538/7492, April 19, 2010). CIC directed the Delhi Government to inform the common citizens about the timeframe required to redress their grievances.
¤ More recently, the CIC held that political parties are answerable under the Right to Information Act. It made RTI applicable to Congress, BJP, CPI-M, CPI, NCP and BSP. Some applicants sought information under RTI from these parties. The information related to their finances, the voluntary financial contributions they received, the names and addresses of the donors and some other details. The parties replied that they are not covered by RTI Act. CIC directed these political parties to appoint PIOs and respond to RTI questions. The CIC asked them to comply with the provisions of mandatory proactive disclosure clauses given under the RTI Act and show the information on their websites. The CIC took into account the fact that they have received substantial financial assistance from government by way of land, buildings and radio talk time. They come under the purview of the Election Commission. They affect the lives of people directly or indirectly. The concerned political partiesopposedtheJudgment.Government wanted to amendthe RTIAct to exempt political parties from its purview but later dropped the move.