Thread by @internetfreedom

In 2018 @GoI_MeitY refused to provide us with public consultation comments on the Data Protection Bill in response to our RTI request.

After 3 years of pursuing this, the Central Information Commission has held that MeitY's denial is grossly improper.
1/n
internetfreedom.in/persist-transp…

The RTI reply stated that the comments were confidential, but the CPIO did not cite any provision under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 to support this. Thus, the refusal was without basis and illegal.
2/n
indiankanoon.org/doc/758550/

So we filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.
The FAA replied that the information can’t be shared under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.

But this section provides exemptions for cabinet papers, and doesn’t apply to our request!
3/n
indiankanoon.org/doc/93879/

So we filed a second appeal. Here are the key arguments we made at the CIC hearing where IFF’s Of Counsel @VrindaBhandari was accompanied by @krishnesh78.

They all underline that the denial of this information, which the public has a right to access, was illegal.
4/n

And persistence pays off (kinda)! The CIC observed that the denial of information was grossly improper and FAA's claim of exemption was unjustified. It was stated that under Sec.19(5) the onus to prove that a denial is justified lies with CPIO.
5/n

The CIC has directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI request and provide us with a revised reply and, if no valid exemptions u/s 8 of the RTI Act could be claimed, the comments.

We will keep persisting for transparency around the Data Bill and keep you updated!

#SaveOurPrivacy
6/n