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, 716 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, 4,343 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, 2,059 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, 1,258 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, 6,288 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,299 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 03.10.2012 - Girish Chandra Deshpande Vs. Central Informtion Commissioner & Ors. (177.5 KiB, 2,504 hits)

 Sec. 9 

  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 4,343 hits)

 Sec. 10

  SC judgement dated 13.12.2012 - Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (231.2 KiB, 1,258 hits)

Sec. 11

  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 - Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. (141.4 KiB, 4,343 hits)

  SC Judgment dated 16.04.2013 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr. (325.2 KiB, 3,299 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, 1,431 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, 5,502 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, 1,124 hits)

Doctrine of Precedence

  SC Judgment dated 13.09.2012 - Namita Sharma Vs. Union of India (683.3 KiB, 780 hits)


——————————————
Uncategorized

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 02.09.2011 - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (198.3 KiB, 730 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 09.08.2011 - CBSE & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (264.4 KiB, 944 hits)

  Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.04.2011 - P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (26.2 KiB, 742 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, 851 hits)

  Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 - PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another (34.4 KiB, 9,906 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, 2,707 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, 10,288 hits)

Section 3

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 - Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others (158.6 KiB, 5,079 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, 12,697 hits)

Section 6(2)

  Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 - Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 1,479 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, 12,697 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, 719 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, 4,406 hits)

—————————

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 5,759 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 817 hits)

Section 8 (1)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 1,885 hits)

 

Section 8(1)(j)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 5,759 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 5,329 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, 4,406 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, 4,903 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, 719 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, 12,697 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, 1,984 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, 2,112 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 5,330 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, 719 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, 1,885 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, 851 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 09.10.2013 - Union of India and Ors. Vs. Adarsh Sharma (272.6 KiB, 3,150 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, 522 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, 695 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 21.05.2010 - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and Another (394.3 KiB, 3,907 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 - National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 622 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 - Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 746 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 - Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 682 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 - Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 654 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, 685 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 (99 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 99 ratings

Check Also

Marriage

MARRIAGE: Sex on false promise of marriage is rape: Supreme Court; Bride Tested For Pregnancy And Virginity Tests Without Her Knowledge, Takes Groom To Court …

Sex on false promise of marriage is rape: Supreme CourtBride Tested For Pregnancy And Virginity …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (99 votes cast)
RTI - Court judgements, 4.0 out of 5 based on 99 ratings
jasminbet istanbulevdeneve instagram takipçi hilesi evden eve nakliyat web viewer instagram takipçi instagram türk takipçi satın al nakliyat free followers for instagram instagram takipçi instagram takipçi satın al instagram free followers instagram takipçi free instagram followers instagram takipçi kasma instagram beğeni hilesi cheat follower for instagram instagram giriş instagram free follower instagram takipçi instagram takipçi free followers for instagram instagram takipçi satın al instagram free followers free instagram followers instagram takipçi kasma instagram beğeni hilesi cheat follower for instagram instagram giriş instagram free follower instagram free followers instagram takipçi satın al instagram takipçi free followers for instagram instagram takipçi free instagram followers instagram takipçi kasma instagram beğeni hilesi cheat follower for instagram instagram giriş instagram free follower 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 Cami Halısı Cami Halısı Cami Halısı Cami Halısı Cami Halısı Cami Halısı https://takipstolk.com/?hl=tr istanbul escort Esenyurt Escort istanbul escort ankara escort