MORE: Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise >>> Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC) >>> RTI – Circulars/Guidelines >>> DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE Circulars/Orders
RECENT JUDGEMENTS
- Secs. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2
Gujarat High Court directed as under:-
Para 30
“In absence of any inherent or suo moto powers being vested in the commission by the RTI Act, the Commission could not have entertained an oral request and suo moto converted it into an RTI application; that too at an appellate stage.”
xxx xxx xxx
“40. Further despite the degree in question being put on the website of the petitioner University for all to see and despite this fact being made expressly clear with precision in the pleadings before this Court and despite the respondent never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, the respondent No.2 has persisted with the matter. This is one more reason to impose costs while allowing this petition.
41 Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed in proceeding is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this judgment.” – Gujarat HC Judgment dated 31.03.2023 – Gujarat University vs. M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) & 3 other(s) – [Sec. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2]
- Section 24(1)
— Delhi High Court: “Thus, considering the fact that the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau is clearly exempted under Section 24(1) read with Schedule II of the RTI Act, the direction of the CIC to provide the outcome of the complaint to the Respondent/ RTI Applicant is not sustainable and the same would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the said finding and direction of the CIC is set aside.” – Delhi HC Judgment dated 25.01.2023 – CPIO, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Vs. G.S. Srinivasan
- ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer
— Delhi High Court: “15. In the opinion of this Court, the information sought in the present petition would not be liable to be disclosed, owing to the nature of the information i.e., relating to senior personnel in the Navy. The CIC’s order does not warrant any interference.” – Delhi HC Judgment dated 11.01.2023 – Jagjit Singh Pal Singh Virk Vs. Union of India & Anr. [ACRs/Merit List of Naval Officer]
- 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.” [Section 20(1)]
- Section 8(1)(h)
Delhi High Court: It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.” [Exemption under Sec. 8(1)(h)] – Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 – Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi
- Section 8(1)(d)
Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
xxx xxx
v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided
xxx xxx
viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.”
[Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d); PIO/CPIO] – Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 – Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
- Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx xxx xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …” [Sections 8(1)(j); Disclosure of an Interest in the Information] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr.
- Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.” – [Sections 7, 8(1)(j); Larger Public Interest, Attendance Record] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.
- Certified Copies of Court Documents
SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)- SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 – Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another
- Electronic Voting Machine
Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information. – Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 – Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [Sections 2(f) & (i), 3, 6(1); Electronic Voting Machine]
- Multiple Sections & Personal Information
SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.] – SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 – Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
- Section 22
Madras HC: “… … the other procedures or regulations formulated by any other institutions, cannot prevail over the Act of Parliament and those Rules and Regulations of such individual institutions can never override the purpose and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” xxx xxx “Thus, the second respondent is entitled to receive the answer scripts as sought for in his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All such similar applications are also to be disposed of by the writ petitioner-Law University, as expeditiously as possible.” – Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 – The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai [Section 22; Answer Scripts/Sheets]
- Sections 18 & 19
Delhi HC: “A mere reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly shows that the CIC cannot give directions to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Further, passing such an order would be beyond the scope of powers and functions of the CIC as stated under the RTI Act, 2005.” [Sections 18,19 & 20; Giving judgments on organisation’s policy not envisaged] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 – Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar
[Sections 18,19 & 20; Directions on policy matters not permissible]
- CIC & Information Commissioners
SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 – Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others
- RTI
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
- 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.
- Sections 19(1), 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.” – Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India
- Sections 8,9,11
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.) – SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 – Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc.
- Sections 8(1)(e), 11(1)
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.” [Section 8(1)(e)], ” …. 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.” [Section 11(1)] – Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 – Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India
- Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3)
Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. – Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 – M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.
- No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act – Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 – CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]
- 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
- 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.
- [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)] – No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act – Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 – CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira
- [Section 8 (1)( j)] – Service details of employees amount to ‘personal information’ under the RTI Act – SC Judgment dated 31.08.2017 – Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager Vs. C.S. Shyam & Anr.
- [Sections 2 (f), 24] – 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
- 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
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
- Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv) – Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – 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.”
- Section 2(f) – Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – 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.”
- Section 3 – Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 – Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others – “…it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application.”
Section 6(2) – Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 – Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India
* 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]
- Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal
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
- Sec. 8(1)(j) – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 – Union of India Vs. Anita Singh. SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr.. SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 – Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors.
- 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.
- Section 20 –
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.”
- Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside – SC Judgment dated 13.12.2012 – Manohar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Section 24(1) – “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
I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
II. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
I. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS (RTI)
A. Section-Wise SC Judgements
B. Subject-Wise SC Judgements
A. SC JUDGMENTS (RTI) (SECTION-WISE)
Multiple Sections (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31)
SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)
SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 9,519 hits)
Multiple Sections
SC: “59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.]
SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 - Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (1.4 MiB, 2,187 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, 13,753 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, 3,801 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, 2,124 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, 18,704 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,581 hits)
SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 4,188 hits)
Sec. 9 SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 13,753 hits)
Sec. 10 SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 2,124 hits)
Sec. 11 SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 13,753 hits)
SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 5,581 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, 2,808 hits)
A. SC JUDGMENTS (RTI) (SUBJECT-WISE)
CIC & Information Commissioners
SC Judgement dated 15.02.2019 - Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India & Others (205.2 KiB, 9,060 hits)
Certified Copies of Court Documents
SC: “42. … …
In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)
SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 - Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another (150.2 KiB, 9,519 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, 11,932 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, 9,174 hits)
Doctrine of Precedence SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 1,730 hits)
Personal Information
SC:
“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” [Secs. 8, 8(1)(j), 9, 11(1), Art. 19(1) of the Constitution; Personal Information such as qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. and Personal Information such as medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc.]
SC Judgment dated 13.11.2019 - Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (1.4 MiB, 2,187 hits)
Uncategorized
Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 1,434 hits)
Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 1,617 hits)
Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 1,444 hits)
II. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
A. Section-Wise High Court Judgements
B. Subject-Wise High Court Judgements
A. HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS (RTI) (SECTION-WISE)
Section 2(f) * Section 2(h) * Section 2(i) * Section 3 * Section 4(1)(b) * Section 6(1) * Section 6(2) * Section 7(9) * Section 8(1)(e) * Section 8(1)(j) * Section 18 * Sections 18 & 19 * Section 19(8)(a)(iv) * Section 20 * Section 22 * Section 24(1)
Section 2(f)
Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information. Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 7,112 hits)
Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 2,431 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, 22,611 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, 5,860 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, 19,705 hits)
Sections 2(i)
Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information.
Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 7,112 hits)
Section 3
Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information.
Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 7,112 hits)
Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 - Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others (158.6 KiB, 12,569 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, 21,961 hits)
Section 5
— Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 – Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
ii) A PIO/CPIO cannot be held responsible if they have genuinely rejected the information sought on valid grounds permissible under the Act. Mere difference of opinion on the part of CIC cannot lead to an imposition of penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act;
iii) Government departments ought not to be permitted to evade disclosure of information. Diligence has to be exercised by the said departments, by conducting a thorough search and enquiry, before concluding that the information is not available or traceable;
iv) Every effort should be made to locate information, and the fear of disciplinary action would work as a deterrent against suppression of information for vested interests;
v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided;
vi) A PIO/CPIO has to apply their mind, analyze the material, and then direct disclosure or give reasons for non-disclosure. The PIO cannot rely upon subordinate officers;
vii) Duty of compliance lies upon the PIO/CPIO. The exercise of power by the PIO/CPIO has to be with objectivity and seriousness the PIO/CPIO cannot be casual in their approach.
viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.
[Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d)] Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 - Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi (489.9 KiB, 6,438 hits)
Section 6(1)
Secs. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2
Gujarat High Court directed as under:-
Para 30
“In absence of any inherent or suo moto powers being vested in the commission by the RTI Act, the Commission could not have entertained an oral request and suo moto converted it into an RTI application; that too at an appellate stage.”
xxx xxx xxx
“40. Further despite the degree in question being put on the website of the petitioner University for all to see and despite this fact being made expressly clear with precision in the pleadings before this Court and despite the respondent never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, the respondent No.2 has persisted with the matter. This is one more reason to impose costs while allowing this petition.
41 Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed in proceeding is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this judgment.” –
Gujarat HC Judgment dated 31.03.2023 – Gujarat University vs. M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) & 3 other(s) – [Sec. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2]
Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information. Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 7,112 hits)
Section 6(2)
Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 - Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 3,351 hits)
Section 7
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court:
“The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.” Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 7,102 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, 21,961 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, 9,849 hits)
Section 8(1)(d)
— Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 – Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
ii) A PIO/CPIO cannot be held responsible if they have genuinely rejected the information sought on valid grounds permissible under the Act. Mere difference of opinion on the part of CIC cannot lead to an imposition of penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act;
iii) Government departments ought not to be permitted to evade disclosure of information. Diligence has to be exercised by the said departments, by conducting a thorough search and enquiry, before concluding that the information is not available or traceable;
iv) Every effort should be made to locate information, and the fear of disciplinary action would work as a deterrent against suppression of information for vested interests;
v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided;
vi) A PIO/CPIO has to apply their mind, analyze the material, and then direct disclosure or give reasons for non-disclosure. The PIO cannot rely upon subordinate officers;
vii) Duty of compliance lies upon the PIO/CPIO. The exercise of power by the PIO/CPIO has to be with objectivity and seriousness the PIO/CPIO cannot be casual in their approach.
viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause. [Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d)]
Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 - Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (889.7 KiB, 7,785 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, 13,815 hits)
—————————
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 12,040 hits)
Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 1,567 hits)
Section 8 (1) Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 4,020 hits)
Section 8(1)(h) (Exemption under Sec. 8(1)(h)
— Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 – Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi – It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.” [Exemption under Sec. 8(1)(h)]
Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 - Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi (489.9 KiB, 6,438 hits)
Section 8(1)(j)
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx xxx xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”
Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 7,905 hits)
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court:
“The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.” Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 7,102 hits)
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 12,040 hits)
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 11,465 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, 13,815 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, 10,953 hits)
Sections 18 & 19
Delhi HC: “A mere reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly shows that the CIC cannot give directions to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Further, passing such an order would be beyond the scope of powers and functions of the CIC as stated under the RTI Act, 2005.” [Sections 18,19 & 20; Giving judgments on organisation’s policy not envisaged]
Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 - Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar (463.3 KiB, 7,455 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, 9,849 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, 21,961 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, 11,031 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, 4,320 hits)
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 11,509 hits)
Section 22
Madras HC: “… … the other procedures or regulations formulated by any other institutions, cannot prevail over the Act of Parliament and those Rules and Regulations of such individual institutions can never override the purpose and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” xxx xxx “Thus, the second respondent is entitled to receive the answer scripts as sought for in his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All such similar applications are also to be disposed of by the writ petitioner-Law University, as expeditiously as possible.” [Section 22; Answer Scripts/Sheets]
Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 - The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai (234.3 KiB, 7,588 hits)
Section 24(1) (of RTI Act)
— Delhi High Court: “Thus, considering the fact that the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau is clearly exempted under Section 24(1) read with Schedule II of the RTI Act, the direction of the CIC to provide the outcome of the complaint to the Respondent/ RTI Applicant is not sustainable and the same would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the said finding and direction of the CIC is set aside.”
Delhi HC Judgment dated 25.01.2023 - CPIO, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Vs. G.S. Srinivasan (639.8 KiB, 4,643 hits)
— 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, 9,849 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, 4,020 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, 2,431 hits)
Delhi HC Judgement dated 09.10.2013 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adarsh Sharma (272.6 KiB, 5,202 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, 1,081 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, 1,332 hits)
Delhi HC Judgement dated 21.05.2010 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and Another (394.3 KiB, 5,489 hits)
Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 - National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 1,329 hits)
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 - Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 1,406 hits)
Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 - Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 1,353 hits)
Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 - Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 1,168 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, 1,213 hits)
B. HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS (RTI) (SUBJECT-WISE)
ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer * Attendance Record * Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information * Electronic Voting Machine * Larger Public Interest
ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer
— Delhi High Court: “15. In the opinion of this Court, the information sought in the present petition would not be liable to be disclosed, owing to the nature of the information i.e., relating to senior personnel in the Navy. The CIC’s order does not warrant any interference.” –
Delhi HC Judgment dated 11.01.2023 - Jagjit Singh Pal Singh Virk Vs. Union of India & Anr. (710.4 KiB, 4,684 hits)
Attendance Record
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”
Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 7,102 hits)
Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx xxx xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”
Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 7,905 hits)
Electronic Voting Machine
Electronic voting machine is not information
Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 7,112 hits)
Larger Public Interest
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”
Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 7,102 hits)
PIO/CPIO
— Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
xxx xxx
v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided
xxx xxx
viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.”
[Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d); PIO/CPIO] –
Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 - Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (889.7 KiB, 7,785 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 on 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.
Disciplinary and Transparency Forum – India Diciplinary & Transparancy Forum
Prevention of Sexual Harassment Guidelines
10 types of readers. Which one are you?
Is the print dictionary losing meaning?
National consumer helpline number to be integrated with WhatsApp
Consumer Forum Asks SBI To Return Rs.5.88 Lakh Lost in Cyber Fraud by a Customer
Online filing of consumer complaints to become mandatory from April 2023
Supreme Court upholds homebuyers’ rights as financial creditors under IBC
HDFC Bank has no love and respect for India: NCDRC
