In February, Thakur also filed a request under the Right to Information Act asking the PMO what action it had taken on her letter seeking a probe against Vadra. She also sought information on the PMO’s affidavit in the Allahabad high court. She told dna that she just wanted to know the ‘file notings’ related to action taken by the PMO. On March 1, the PMO refused to share the information, and said that the information cannot be provided to her since the matter was “sub-judice”.
Thakur sent a second RTI request to the PMO, seeking the same information in May. With the matter now being out of court, the PMO was in a position to respond to the RTI request. However, on June 6, the PMO again refused to furnish the information. “The office, keeping in view the Supreme Court ruling, has sought exemption as the matter has been treated as confidential,” the PMO said.
The PMO was referring to an apex court ruling which states that “the exemption under section 8(1) (e), of the RTI Act, is available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary capacity.”
“In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary relationship,” the PMO said quoting the Supreme Court ruling.
Thakur sent a second RTI request to the PMO, seeking the same information in May. With the matter now being out of court, the PMO was in a position to respond to the RTI request. However, on June 6, the PMO again refused to furnish the information. “The office, keeping in view the Supreme Court ruling, has sought exemption as the matter has been treated as confidential,” the PMO said.
The PMO was referring to an apex court ruling which states that “the exemption under section 8(1) (e), of the RTI Act, is available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary capacity.”
“In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary relationship,” the PMO said quoting the Supreme Court ruling.
We wonder how long this will go, we had a similar incident when the Aam Aadmi Party had tried to gain more information about the business that INC's son-in-law does!
- Unknown Updated at: Thursday, June 13, 2013
![Thor : The Dark World (2013) Movie Clips [HD]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Cc0m-mAaiC54DakVBotbA8_Y7uKYQVDZNfYOP8jvEihUZG6zB0K4noorBT26bigfsGD15A8h3yKM2Dxu_yJcaEJAUotp3fzyMa6wBQoJNHRdXpLf_iv2PHml9JnhP9f0NnrIKYtGWidv/w72-h72-p-k-no-nu/MV5BMTQyNzAwOTUxOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTE0OTc5OQ@@._V1_SY317_CR4,0,214,317_.jpg)
