Tag: RTI

In a recent development, Advocate Rahul Tiwari has unveiled the arbitrary eligibility criteria set by two prominent law colleges in Uttar Pradesh for faculty positions. The job advertisements explicitly stated that only candidates possessing a “2-year LLM” degree would be considered eligible for teaching roles. Advocate Rahul Tiwari, being deeply concerned about this issue, filed a Right to Information (RTI) request to investigate further. The aim was to gain clarity on the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, particularly the provision that deems one-year LLM degree holders ineligible for teaching positions.

According to the response received through the RTI request, the law colleges’ eligibility criteria contradicted the existing rules established by the BCI. Rule 20 of Schedule 3, Part 4, of the Rules of Legal Education specifies that individuals holding a degree from a college recognized by the University Grants Commission or similar standard-setting bodies are eligible for teaching positions. The BCI’s 2016 notification, which rendered one-year LLM degree holders ineligible for teaching posts, is currently ineffective and not applicable.

Advocate Rahul Tiwari’s efforts through the RTI request have shed light on the flawed implementation of the eligibility criteria and its inconsistency with the BCI rules. This revelation serves as a reminder to educational institutions and governing bodies to ensure compliance with established regulations and refrain from imposing arbitrary requirements.

The BCI plays a crucial role in maintaining the standards of legal education across India. By clarifying the eligibility criteria for teaching positions, the BCI contributes to the overall quality of legal education and the professional development of law graduates. It is imperative for law colleges and universities to align their recruitment processes with the rules and regulations outlined by the BCI, guaranteeing a fair and transparent selection process.

This RTI revelation may have far-reaching implications, not only for the two law colleges in Uttar Pradesh but also for other educational institutions that may have similar eligibility criteria in place. It is expected that these colleges will review and amend their recruitment policies accordingly, ensuring that candidates with the appropriate qualifications are provided equal opportunities to pursue teaching careers.

Advocate Rahul Tiwari’s RTI filing sets a commendable example of an individual’s commitment to upholding the integrity and fairness of the educational system. Such actions contribute to the continuous improvement of legal education in India and support the pursuit of excellence in the legal profession.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this news article is based on the RTI response received by Advocate Rahul Tiwari. The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the law colleges, BCI, Lexpeeps or any other relevant authorities.

Editor’s Desk:
Jayseeka Virdi ( News Stories Editor ) and Madhur Rathaur 

-Report by Shreya Shukla

In the case of Nisha Mittal v Chief commissioner of income tax, the Central information commission directed the husband of the appellant to provide generic details of the husband for the time period as contained in the RTI Application as well as for the latest financial years to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

FACTS

The appellant filed an online RTI application on 24/02/2021 seeking for the gross annual income of her husband Ashish Mittal. The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 23rd March 2021 under SECTION8(1)(J) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant after being dissatisfied with the order filed an appeal dated 03rd April 2021. FAA’s order dated 01st May 2021 was upheld by the reply of CPIO. After this, the appellant approached the commission for help and appealed for the second time.

The appellant contended that she needed the information for supporting the arguments in her maintenance case. On the other hand, the CPIO denied information to the appellant said under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI ACT,2005. Section8(1)(j) states as follows:- information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The court had observed

“in matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife “…The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed..”

However, the court then referred to the judgment of the Rahmat Bano case and applied the law laid by the Apex Court. It was observed

“a coordinate bench of the Commission in the Rahmat Bano case, wherein the disclosure of the gross income was allowed to the estranged wife on the ground of sustenance and livelihood of the family.”

After taking into consideration the facts of the case and relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court and Higher Courts, such as Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, Sunita Jain v.Pawan Kumar Jain, Sunita Jain v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile v. Maharashtra SIC, the Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband.