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

I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
II. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

Section 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 [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, 827 hits)

Sec. 8(1)(j)

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 1,903 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 1,683 hits)

Sec. 10

  SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 827 hits)

Sec. 11

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 1,903 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, 575 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, 3,181 hits)

Doctrine of Precedence

  SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 539 hits)


——————————————
Uncategorized

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 478 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 690 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 456 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)

  Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 - PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another (34.4 KiB, 5,871 hits)

Section 2(h)
—  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, 6,734 hits)

Section 3

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 - Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others (158.6 KiB, 2,539 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, 9,384 hits)

Section 6(2)

  Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 - Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 670 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, 9,384 hits)

Section 8(1)(e)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 3,611 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 456 hits)

Section 8(1)(j)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 3,611 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 3,333 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, 3,016 hits)

Section 20

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 3,496 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, 9,384 hits)

Section 20

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 3,496 hits)

Section 24(1) (of RTI Act)

“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 dated 09.10.2013 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adarsh Sharma (272.6 KiB, 961 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, 321 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, 404 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 21.05.2010 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and Another (394.3 KiB, 2,668 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 - National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 397 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 - Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 493 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 - Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 447 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 - Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 420 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, 477 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 (98 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 98 ratings

Check Also

Law

LAW: Adult son has no legal right to stay in parents’ house, rules HC …

Adult son has no legal right to stay in parents’ house, rules HC No copyright …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (98 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 98 ratings