Home » Court Judgements » HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
High Court Judgements


More:  Supreme Court Judgements * Court Judgements on Service MattersLatest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders *  Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

Recent Judgements   

High Court Judgements – Subject-Wise

1. RTI
2. Service Matters
3. General

1. RTI

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, 3,057 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, 3,057 hits)

Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties]

  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 - M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (225.1 KiB, 578 hits)

No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 1,366 hits)

Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties 

  Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 - RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary (70.9 KiB, 582 hits)


HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] 

  Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 - The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (232.1 KiB, 623 hits)

Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. 

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 595 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, 706 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, 1,619 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 4,860 hits)


Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry *Habitual Indebtedness * Pension * Reservation * Sexual Harassment

Compulsory Retirement — “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 3,061 hits)

 Delay in conducting departmental inquiry 

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 3,726 hits)

The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 



  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 635 hits)


  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 2,849 hits)


— PWDs 

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 8,206 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 599 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 - All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others (593.4 KiB, 1,205 hits)

Sexual Harassment 
— Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 1,017 hits)


Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 - Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. (434.8 KiB, 269 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 info[at]dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Check Also


LAW: Retired Delhi cop made to wait 3 months for FIR in online fraud; Can’t defer witness deposition at accused’s request: SC …

Retired Delhi cop made to wait 3 months for FIR in online fraudCan’t defer witness …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
wso shell IndoXploit shell c99 shell instagram takipçi hilesi hacklink wordpress download hacklink Google