Court Decisions on RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2020/02/14 04:11		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Court Decisions on RTI ======	+	====== Court Decisions on RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
-	{{ :important-decisions:court-decisions.jpg?nolink \|}}	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions court rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=((HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (Division Bench of HC of Delhi) (in r/o 8 Writ Petitions) dated 30-11-2009 (HC of Delhi) dated...)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{ :important-decisions:court-decisions.jpg?nolink &621x330\|}}

	{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}		{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}
	^ Sl ^ Case Name ^ Description ^ Downloads ^		^ 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 [[act:\|Right to Information Act, 2005]] as they are not owned, controlled or [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] by the appropriate Government. \| {{:important-decisions:court:thalappalam_coop._vs_state_of_kerala.pdf\|Download}} \|	+	\| 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 [[:act:\|Right to Information Act, 2005]] as they are not owned, controlled or [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] by the appropriate Government. \| {{:important-decisions:court:thalappalam_coop._vs_state_of_kerala.pdf\|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 \| {{:important-decisions:court:icai-vs-shaunak.pdf\|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 \| {{:important-decisions:court:icai-vs-shaunak.pdf\|Download}} \|
-	\| 3. \| CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay \| Examining bodies to permit examinees to have [[guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|inspection]] of their answer books \| {{:important-decisions:court:cbseandanr-vs-adityaandors.pdf\|Download}} \|	+	\| 3. \| CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay \| Examining bodies to permit examinees to have [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|inspection]] of their answer books \| {{:important-decisions:court:cbseandanr-vs-adityaandors.pdf\|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 [[act:\|RTI Act]] is only to the extent of inconsistency [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_28122006_8.pdf\|CIC decision]] \| {{:important-decisions:court:pcwadhwa-vs-cicandors.pdf\|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 [[:act:\|RTI Act]] is only to the extent of inconsistency [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_28122006_8.pdf\|CIC decision]] \| {{:important-decisions:court:pcwadhwa-vs-cicandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 5. \| UPSC Vs Shiv Shambu \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:upsc-vs-shivshambuandors.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 5. \| UPSC Vs Shiv Shambu \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:upsc-vs-shivshambuandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 6. \| Directorate of Enforcement Vs Arun Kumar Agrawal \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:dteofenforcement-vs-arunkumaragrawalandors.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 6. \| Directorate of Enforcement Vs Arun Kumar Agrawal \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:dteofenforcement-vs-arunkumaragrawalandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
Line 25:		Line 31:
	\| 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 \| {{:important-decisions:sc_2013_kic_vs_karnataka_high_court_-_inf_to_be_obtained_under_court_rules.pdf\|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 \| {{:important-decisions:sc_2013_kic_vs_karnataka_high_court_-_inf_to_be_obtained_under_court_rules.pdf\|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. \| {{ :important-decisions:pdf_upload-367812.pdf \|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. \| {{ :important-decisions:pdf_upload-367812.pdf \|Download}} \|
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-
	===== High Court RTI Decisions =====		===== High Court RTI Decisions =====

Line 85:		Line 78:
	- {{:important-decisions:escorts_vs_rakeshmukar_gupta_-incometax.pdf\|Escorts Ltd Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta & batch petitions - Income Tax Returns exempted from disclosure }} - The information as disclosed in the income tax returns would qualify as personal information with regard to private companies which are alter egos of their promoters. In cases of widely held companies, most information relating to their income and expenditure would be in public domain and the confidential information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Even in cases of corporate entities, the income tax returns and other disclosure made to authorities would also include transactions with other parties and those parties can also claim exception under Section 8(1) of the Act. ( Delhi High Court )		- {{:important-decisions:escorts_vs_rakeshmukar_gupta_-incometax.pdf\|Escorts Ltd Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta & batch petitions - Income Tax Returns exempted from disclosure }} - The information as disclosed in the income tax returns would qualify as personal information with regard to private companies which are alter egos of their promoters. In cases of widely held companies, most information relating to their income and expenditure would be in public domain and the confidential information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Even in cases of corporate entities, the income tax returns and other disclosure made to authorities would also include transactions with other parties and those parties can also claim exception under Section 8(1) of the Act. ( Delhi High Court )
	- {{ :important-decisions:compendium_of_hc_judgment_on_orders_of_cic.pdf \|Compendium of High Court judgement on orders of CIC}}		- {{ :important-decisions:compendium_of_hc_judgment_on_orders_of_cic.pdf \|Compendium of High Court judgement on orders of CIC}}
-
-	===== Read More =====


	[<>]		[<>]

		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
		+
		+	This page is an index of High Court judgments on the Right to Information Act. Entries link to PDFs held in the site's media library. Each judgment should be verified against the current state of the law before citation in an appeal.
		+
		+	Entries that turn on Section 8(1)(j) and were decided before 14 November 2025 must be read against the amendment effected by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public interest override within clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning under the RTI Act now operates through Section 8(2). See [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]]. Section-wise and forum-wise index.
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws\|CIC case laws]]. Central Information Commission orders.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 19 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti case-law high-court index}}

Right to Information Wiki

Court Decisions on RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026