Home » Right to Information » CIC Decisions/Court Judgements » RTI – Court judgements

RTI – Court judgements

MORE: Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise >>> Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC) >>> * RTI – Circulars/Notifications/Instructions/Guides/Guidelines >>> DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE  Circulars/Orders

RECENT JUDGEMENTS

Delhi HC Judgement dated 24.01.2017 – B.B. Dash Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. – Delhi High Court: “8. The response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted.” [Secction 20(1)]

I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
II. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

CIC & Information Commissioners

  SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 - Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others (205.2 KiB, 2,660 hits)

Sec. 8 
SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) (Sections 8,9,11)

  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 5,837 hits)

 — Sec. 8(1)
— SC: “… …lower level economic and financial information, like contracts and departmental budgets should not be withheld under this exemption. This makes it necessary to think when or at what stage an information is to be provided i.e., the appropriate time of providing the information which will depend on nature of information sought for and the consequences it will lead to after coming in public domain. …” 
–   

  SC Judgment dated 16.12.2015 - Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry (412.1 KiB, 2,205 hits)

 [Sections 8(1)(e) and 10 & Art. 19(2) of the Constitution]
Sec. 8(1)(g)

  SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,320 hits)

Sec. 8(1)(j)

  SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 - Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr. (448.0 KiB, 7,986 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,471 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 2,595 hits)

 Sec. 9 

  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 5,837 hits)

 Sec. 10

  SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,320 hits)

Sec. 11

  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 5,837 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,471 hits)

 Sec. 20
— “Ordering withdrawal of the departmental action, if any, initiated against the PIO, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Information Commission to decide the appeal filed by the PIO before it on merits and in accordance with law.”

  SC Judgment dated 13.12.2012 - Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (251.1 KiB, 1,534 hits)

——————————————
Cooperative Societies not covered under the RTI Act

  SC Judgment dated 07.10.2013 - Thalappan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (324.2 KiB, 5,987 hits)

Differently-Abled
SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.”

  SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (258.7 KiB, 1,835 hits)

Doctrine of Precedence

  SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 839 hits)


——————————————
Uncategorized

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 784 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 995 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 786 hits)

II. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

 

Section 2(f) * Section 2(h) * Section 3 * Section 4(1)(b) * Section 6(2) * Section 7(9) * Section 8(1)(e) * Section 8(1)(j) * Section 18 * Section 19(8)(a)(iv) * Section 20 * Section 24(1)

 

Section 2(f)

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 964 hits)

Para 26 of Madras High Court Judgment dated 17.09.2014
“26. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect.”

  Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 - PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another (34.4 KiB, 11,150 hits)

Section 2(h)
—  Cooperative Banks/Societies within the ambit of RTI Act

  Bombay HC Judgment dated 13.02.2017 - Jalgaon Jillha Urban Cooperative Banks Association Ltd., Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (261.6 KiB, 3,000 hits)

— Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 - Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India (487.4 KiB, 11,444 hits)

Section 3

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 - Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others (158.6 KiB, 5,648 hits)

Section 4(1)(b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 - The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 13,832 hits)

Section 6(2)

  Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 - Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 1,575 hits)

Section 7(9)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 - The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 13,832 hits)

Section 8 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,224 hits)

Section 8(1)(e) 
Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 5,922 hits)

—————————

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 6,230 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 896 hits)

Section 8 (1)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 2,371 hits)

 

Section 8(1)(j)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 6,230 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 5,783 hits)

 Section 11(1) 
Delhi HC: ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 5,922 hits)

 Section 18   Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided: “… it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought.” 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 28.10.2013 - J.K. Mittal Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (267.2 KiB, 5,339 hits)

  
Section 19(3) 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,224 hits)

Section 19(8)(a)(iv)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 - The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 13,832 hits)

Section 20

Delhi High Court has held as under:-
“… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (375.0 KiB, 3,476 hits)

Delhi High Court: “8. The response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 24.01.2017 - B.B. Dash Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (572.5 KiB, 2,533 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 5,766 hits)

Section 24(1) (of RTI Act) 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 2,224 hits)

——————— No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 2,371 hits)

“5. …….if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act. … It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not………”

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 964 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 09.10.2013 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adarsh Sharma (272.6 KiB, 3,587 hits)

Uncategorized

  Jharkhand High Court Judgment dated 11.07.2011 - Commissioner (Appeal) of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi Vs Central Information Commission and Anr. (82.8 KiB, 564 hits)

  Bombay High Court judgement dated 11.10.2010 - Board of Management of Bombay Properties of Indian Institute of Science Vs. CIC & Union of India (115.0 KiB, 736 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 21.05.2010 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and Another (394.3 KiB, 4,331 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 - National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 684 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 - Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 791 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 - Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 739 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 - Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 718 hits)

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 03.04.2008 - WP No.419 of 2007 - Dr. Celsa Pinto, Panaji Vs. Goa State Information Commission (173.8 KiB, 737 hits)

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at dtf[at]dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (100 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 100 ratings

Check Also

RTI News

RTI: Probe Agency Can Withhold Names Of Tax Evaders In Panama Papers: Central Information Commission; CIC Directs Department Of Economic Affairs To Provide Information About Donors To Political Parties …

RTI NEWSProbe Agency Can Withhold Names Of Tax Evaders In Panama Papers: Central Information CommissionCIC …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (100 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 100 ratings
instagram takipçi kasma instagram takipçi hilesi instagram beğeni hilesi instagram takipçi instagram giriş instagram takipçi satın al instagram free followers instagram free follower cheat follower for instagram free instagram followers free followers for instagram İskenderun escort Trabzon Escort Avcılar Escort Malatya Escort Malatya Escort İskenderun Escort bursa escort Yalova escort Escort istanbul ANKARA ESCORT basketbol iddaa sonuçları Ankara escort bayan Kadıköy Escort Ankara Escort Ankara Escort Esenyurt Escort Porno Ankara Escort kurtköy escort Taksim Escort Türkçe Altyazılı Porno sex izle x net türk porno Bahçeşehir Escort Kurtköy Escort ankara escort Kadıköy Escort Ankara Escort Bahçeşehir Escort ankara escort ankara escort Esenyurt Escort Keciören Escort Ankara Escort Beylikdüzü Escort Bayan Ankara escort Ankara Escort Ankara escort bayan İzmir Escort Kurtköy Escort Ankara Escort Beylikdüzü Escort Bayan Etiler Escort sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort sakarya escort Atasehir escort Kartal Escort Kurtköy Escort istanbul Escort Antalya Escort Pendik Escort izmir Escort Bodrum Escort Mersin Escort ankara bayan ankara escort Beşiktaş Escort şişli escort Escort halkalı Escort ataköy Escort Şirinevler Escort Bakırköy pirosy Bostancı Escort Ümraniye escort Kurtköy Escort Ataşehir Escort Kurtköy Escort Kadıköy Escort Pendik Escort Ataşehir Escort Pendik Escort Kurtköy escort Bostancı Escort Ataşehir escort Ataşehir Escort Kadıköy Escort Kadıköy Escort Üsküdar Escort Kartal Escort Ataşehir Escort Mutlukent Escort Bostancı Escort Ataşehir Escort istanbul escort Kurtköy Escort Kartal Escort sirinevler escort florya escort escort bayanlar betmatik-giris.xyz nemcoinalsat.com xlmalsat.com turk-bitcoin-borsalari.com kriptoparausdtether.com kriptoparatron.com kriptopararipple.com kriptoparalitecoin.com kriptoparaethereum.com kriptoparadash.com koineks.work koineks.org koineks.net koineks.mobi koineks.info koineks.club koineks.biz ethereumclassicpiyasasi.com dogecoinalsat.com bitcoingoldalsat.com bitcoincashpiyasasi.com bitcoin-borsalari.com bitcoin-al-sat.com altcoin-al-sat.com markobet50.com markobet365.com markobetvip.com markobetuyelik.com markobettanitim.com markobettini.com markobetcekilis.com 2markobet.com betsat-bonus.xyz markobet.tv markobet.org elexbet-bonus.xyz markobet.info markobet.biz 1xbet-bonus.com casino-dunyasi.xyz pokerqq.club canlitvon.com online-iddaa.xyz justinbet-bonus.com online-kacakbahis.online bets-giris.xyz elexbet-bonus.com online-kacakbahis.info online-kacakbahis.xyz betsat-guvenilir.xyz onlinekacakbahis.live superbetin-bonus.com vivolabet-kayitol.com canli-bahis.live acctvideos.com betsenin-kayitol.com onlinekacakbahis.info casino-list.live bahis-adresi.live onlinekacakbahis.xyz iddaaoyna.xyz betnews.live betlist24.live betist-giris.xyz online-bahis.online trbet-casino.xyz justinbetcanli.xyz trbet-uyelik.com bahis-rehberi2.com casino724.live bet724.info betledy.live online-bahis.xyz newsbet.live superbets.live betbot.info betci.live kacakcasino.online kacakcasino.live kacakcasino.info kacakcasino.xyz superbetin-bonus.xyz supertotobetci.live supertotobet-bahis.com superbahis-giris.live super-bahis-guvenilir.xyz superbahis-canlibahis.live superbahis-giris.xyz super-bahis.live superbahisyeni.live superbahis-yenigirisi.live super-bahis.xyz kacak-casino.live kacak-casino.info rivalogirisyap.com kacak-casino.xyz betcix.live pashagaming.live bahis-oyna.live bonus-ver.live betcrop.live canli-casino.online bahisci.live canli-casino.info bet30.info betlock.live canli-casino.xyz casino-siteleri.info mobillbahis.com mariobetcanli.com casino-siteleri.live bettip365.com black-betting.live justinbet.xyz justinbet.live kacak-iddaa.xyz casino-siteleri.xyz betting-bonus.live canli-bet.live betting-sports.live bahisle.info canlicasino.xyz bahislekazan.info bet-siteleri.live canli-bahisci.live canli-casino.live betboo-canlibahis.live 1xbetbahis.live enbet-giris.xyz dafabete-giris1.com kacak-bahis.live kacak-bahis.xyz dafa-betgiris1.com canli-bets2.com justin-bet.xyz online-bahisci.xyz bixbett.com superbahis-casino.com dafabet1-giris.xyz https://www.betmatik-canlibahis.live betsenin-giris.xyz giris-betmatik.live betmatikcanli.xyz bahis-bonus.live betmatik-giris.xyz youwin-yeni-giris.xyz betting-game.live betistcanli.xyz betistbahis.xyz casinodunyasi.live betist-casino.com betexper-giris.xyz yeni2.betigogirisyap1.com betboonline.com betboo-giris1.xyz rivalobet-giris.xyz betboogiris.live betboo-giris.xyz casinodunyasi.xyz rivolabet-yeni-giris.xyz anadolucasino.xyz artemisyenigiris.com artemis-casino.com bettingsiteleri.live artemis-canlibahis.com casino-siteleri.info betpas restbet süpertotobet süperbahis istanbul escort
wso shell IndoXploit shell c99 shell instagram takipçi hilesi hacklink Google