People's Watch v. State of TN (Madras High Court, 2022-08-10) WP/2022/000345 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 4(1)(b)(xii). District-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists must be uploaded. Under §4(1)(b)(xii) of the RTI Act 2005, the State must publish district-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists.
District-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists must be uploaded.
Under §4(1)(b)(xii) of the RTI Act 2005, the State must publish district-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists. Refusal of such lists under §8(1)(j) as 'third-party personal information' is rejected — these are scheme-recipient public records.
§4(1)(b)(xii) is mandatory; refusal as 'third-party' rejected.
This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.
Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.