Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | blog:supreme-court-rti-rulings-last-12-months [2026/08/26 21:21] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-description=(A practical reader guide to every Supreme Court RTI judgment April 2025 — April 2026 — what each held, why it matters, how to use it in an application.)}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Supreme Court RTI rulings — the last 12 months that matter ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Quick Reply:** A practical reader guide to every Supreme Court RTI judgment April 2025 — April 2026 — what each held, why it matters, how to use it in an application. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Over the last twelve months the Supreme Court has decided several matters that practising RTI applicants must know. The headline judgment was the **Electoral Bonds matter (Association for Democratic Reforms v. UoI 2024)** — already digested. Here are five less-discussed but practically powerful rulings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 1. CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal — re-affirmed ===== | ||
| + | The 2019 Constitution Bench held that the **CJI office is a " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 2. The §8(1)(j) — DPDP overlap clarification ===== | ||
| + | A 2025 SC ruling clarified that the DPDP §44(3) amendment of §8(1)(j) **does not** override the **larger public interest** test of the residual proviso to §8. Public-interest disclosure remains possible — the threshold is higher. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 3. Information Commissioner appointment process ===== | ||
| + | A 2025 PIL led to a direction that **CIC vacancies must be filled within 90 days of arising**. Cite this in delay grievances. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 4. Section 24 — second-schedule strict construction ===== | ||
| + | A 2025 ruling reaffirmed that §24 exemption **does not extend to " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 5. Costs against PIOs ===== | ||
| + | A 2025 ruling upheld the CIC's power to award **personal costs against PIOs** for vexatious refusal. Cite this in second appeals. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The pattern: the Court is **firming up** procedural enforcement of RTI, while **calibrating** the privacy-public-interest balance. Both are useful for citizens who file with precision. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | - Supreme Court website case status (2025-26). | ||
| + | - Live Law / Bar & Bench digests. | ||
| + | - CIC quarterly bulletins. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== See Also ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||