Court Decisions on RTI

All memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information
RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant
Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings cannot be filed by a third party.

Sl	Case Name	Description	Downloads
1.	Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala	Co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 does not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as they are not owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government.	Download
2.	ICAI Vs Shaunak H.Satya	ICAI will have to disclose standards of 'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own experiences and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by it	Download
3.	CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay	Examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books	Download
4.	P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission	RTI Act does not have the effect of either abrogating or repealing all other enactments dealing with furnishing of information to an information seeker. The over-riding effect of RTI Act is only to the extent of inconsistency CIC decision	Download
5.	UPSC Vs Shiv Shambu		Download
6.	Directorate of Enforcement Vs Arun Kumar Agrawal		Download
7.	Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Administrative Officer	No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend.	Download
8.	Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .Vs. CIC	The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Supreme Court	Download
9.	CIC Vs State of Manipur	Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other	Download
10.	Manohar Manikrao Anchule Vs State of Maharashtra	Adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for Tribunals or bodies discharging Quasi-Judicial functions. Principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2).	Download
11.	Namit Sharma Vs Union of India (Review Judgment)	Section-12(5) and 15(5) are not ultra vires the Constitution & do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or a person holding any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession from being considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, but after such person is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, he has to discontinue to hold any other office of profit, remain connected with political party or carry on any business or pursue any profession while functioning as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner	Download
12.	Union Of India Thr. Director vs Central Information Commission & ors. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8396 OF 2009	Reference: ‘information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to him'. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e., the question of balance between ‘public interest in form of right to privacy’ and ‘public interest in access to information’ is to be balanced. The proviso is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right.	Download
13.	Union Of India And Ors vs Adarsh Sharma on 9 October, 2013	If an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau (Exempted Organisation), 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	Download
14.	R.K Jain vs. Union of India [SLP (C) No.22609 of 2012]	Importance of Section 11 of the RTI Act- Hon’ble Supreme Court	Download
15.	J.P. Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 August, 2011	Duties and responsibilities of PIO vis-a-vis deemed PIO	Download
16.	Delhi High Court, Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 28 April, 2009	Information seekers are to be furnish what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics	Download
17.	Reserve Bank of India Vs Jayantilal Mishra on 16-Dec-2016	An information required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. The Financial institutions have an obligation to provide all the information to RBI and such an information shared under an obligation/duty cannot be considered to come under the purview of being shared in fiduciary relationship. RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with Financial institutions because, the reports of inspections, statements of bank, information related to business obtained by RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust. Neither RBI nor Banks act in the interest of each other.	Download
18.	Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Kerala State Information Commission on 04-Feb-2016	The request of information seeker about information of his answer sheets and details of interview marks can be and should be provided to him. However, names of evaluators of Answer Sheets are held in fiduciary relationship and should not be supplied to information seekers.	Download
19.	Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs Ajit Seth & Ors on 06-May-2016	Inquiry Report drawn and submitted by the Committee constituted to inquire into allegations of Sexual Harassment of Woman in workplace, including the evidences and relied upon material, is required to be disclosed to the Complainant women.	Download
20.	Karnataka Information Commission Vs SPIO & Anr on 18-Jan-2013	Published materials should be obtained from market and Proceedings of Court Case should be obtained as per Court Rules. KIC has no locus to file SLP. Imposed exemplary fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for filing frivolous petition	Download
21.	Public Concern for Governance Trust Vs.State of Maharashtra	Right to information is implicit and inbuilt in the right and freedom guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.	Download