Document
Below is the document that was diligently used to support the case with sincerity and strength.
Download & Share the Documents with the world and support this movement.
Click on the document name to download it and the icons beside it to share it with others.
Stay Tuned, More Updates Comming Soon..........
Stay Updated with the RTI by subscribing to our Newsletter. Which soon will be launched.
📄 Document's Name:
Arguements Police Denying Information.
Kamlakar Shenoy
- Filed By:
- Date:
- Case Ref:
The complaint objects to misuse of RTI Act Sections 8G and 8H by Police, EOW, and ACB to deny information. It argues such denials are illegal without FIRs, misapply legal provisions, and violate citizens’ rights. It demands transparency, proper FIR registration, and accountability from police and RTI appellate authorities.
Document Summary
English Document Summary
Subject: Objection to wrongful denial of information by Police, EOW, and ACB under RTI Act
1. Police/EOW/ACB commonly misuse RTI Act Sections 8G and 8H to deny information to complainants.
2. Section 8G does not apply when the complainant himself is the source of information; his identity is already known and needs protection, not secrecy.
3. Section 8H is misapplied — no FIR means no investigation; mere “enquiry” cannot be cited to deny information.
4. Police often fail to register FIRs despite cognizable offences, violating CrPC Sections 154, 157, and 156(2), and SC’s Lalita Kumari ruling (para 111).
5. Police are also violating Section 167(2) of CrPC and Rule 217(5) of Bombay Police Manual by delaying charge sheets, helping accused secure bail.
6. Enquiry is distinct from investigation; under CrPC Section 2G, enquiry has no legal power for evidence collection — investigation starts only post-FIR.
7. Hon. SC allows only a 7-day preliminary enquiry to determine if FIR should be registered — extending this is illegal.
8. RTI applicants are entitled to know actions taken before FIR registration, including enquiry steps.
9. If police claim investigation without FIR, citizens should demand a copy of FIR.
10. First Appellate Authorities (FAA) under RTI in police often misuse CrPC and other laws to deny information — which is not permitted.
11. Under RTI Section 22, no other law can override the RTI Act during appeals; FAA is acting in quasi-judicial capacity, not as a police officer.
1. Police/EOW/ACB commonly misuse RTI Act Sections 8G and 8H to deny information to complainants.
2. Section 8G does not apply when the complainant himself is the source of information; his identity is already known and needs protection, not secrecy.
3. Section 8H is misapplied — no FIR means no investigation; mere “enquiry” cannot be cited to deny information.
4. Police often fail to register FIRs despite cognizable offences, violating CrPC Sections 154, 157, and 156(2), and SC’s Lalita Kumari ruling (para 111).
5. Police are also violating Section 167(2) of CrPC and Rule 217(5) of Bombay Police Manual by delaying charge sheets, helping accused secure bail.
6. Enquiry is distinct from investigation; under CrPC Section 2G, enquiry has no legal power for evidence collection — investigation starts only post-FIR.
7. Hon. SC allows only a 7-day preliminary enquiry to determine if FIR should be registered — extending this is illegal.
8. RTI applicants are entitled to know actions taken before FIR registration, including enquiry steps.
9. If police claim investigation without FIR, citizens should demand a copy of FIR.
10. First Appellate Authorities (FAA) under RTI in police often misuse CrPC and other laws to deny information — which is not permitted.
11. Under RTI Section 22, no other law can override the RTI Act during appeals; FAA is acting in quasi-judicial capacity, not as a police officer.
Hindi Document Summary
Help Me Fight Corruption
Your support helps me keep investigating and exposing corruption across India. Please share this movement to raise awareness and inspire others to stand against corruption.
