Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- important-decisions [2023/04/15 11:51] – Shrawan
+++ important-decisions [2026/06/03 17:01] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Important Decisions ======
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI case law India,landmark RTI judgments,Supreme Court RTI,High Court RTI rulings,CIC decisions,Section 8 case law)
-**Supreme Court, High Court and Information Commission Decisions on RTI**
+metatag-description=(Master directory of landmark RTI case law in India - Supreme Court constitution-bench rulings, High Court orders, CIC decisions on Section 8, third-party.)}}
+====== Important RTI decisions — master directory 2026 ======
-{{:gavel-law-icon.png?nolink |}}This segment contains decisions of various courts which are relevant to Right to Information. The segment include decisions from Supreme Court of India, High Courts of Various States, Central Information Commissions, State Information Commission and others. These decisions are frequently been quoted by RTI Applicants and Central Information Commission.
+**Master directory of the most-cited Supreme Court, High Court and Central Information Commission rulings on the Right to Information Act, 2005. These cases form the citation arsenal for any first appeal under §19(1), second appeal under §19(3), and writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Updated to reflect the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in force since 14 November 2025.**
-----
-{{indexmenu>important-decisions#5}}
+===== Supreme Court — landmark rulings =====
-[<>]
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (2020) 5 SCC 481 — Constitution Bench. **Office of CJI is a public authority** under §2(h). Judges' assets are personal information under §8(1)(j) but subject to public-interest balance.
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (2013) 1 SCC 212 — **Personal information of public servants** is exempt under §8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is shown.
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (2019) 9 SCC 199 — **Time-bound + transparent appointments** to Central + State Information Commissions.
+  * **Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI** (2020) 10 SCC 274 — RBI 2018 crypto banking circular struck down on proportionality grounds.
+  * **Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India** (2017) 10 SCC 1 — **Privacy as a fundamental right** under Article 21; foundation of subsequent §8(1)(j) jurisprudence.
+===== High Court — frequently cited rulings =====
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic|Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner]] (Delhi HC, 2008) — **Procedural objections cannot defeat RTI**.
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information|Adesh Kumar v. Union of India]] (Delhi HC, 2014) — **PIO cannot refuse RTI as "irrelevant"** — §3 creates an unconditional right.
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (Delhi HC, 2014) — **Section 11 third-party consultation is mandatory** before disclosing personal information.
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024|Madras HC on Public Servants' Assets]] (2024) — modern application of *Girish Deshpande* with §8(2) public-interest balance.
+===== Central Information Commission — frequently-cited orders =====
+  * **Sudhir Mehta v. CPIO Income Tax** — disclosure of tax records of public servants
+  * **Common Cause v. CIC** — MPLAD funds audit transparency
+  * **Subhash Chandra Agarwal series** — collegium recommendations, judges' assets, supersession orders
+===== How to cite a case in your RTI / appeal =====
+  - **Locate the right citation** — Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/citation-formatter-app.html|Citation Formatter]] for proper formatting.
+  - **Frame the issue** — *"The PIO has invoked §8(1)(j). The Constitution Bench in CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 held that the public-interest balance test under the proviso (now §8(2) post-DPDP) must be applied case by case."*
+  - **Quote the ratio**, not the obiter.
+  - **Update for DPDP** — every case decided before 14 November 2025 may be subject to the §44(3) amendment to §8(1)(j); the locus of the public-interest test moved to §8(2). The substantive principles survive.
+===== Search the full corpus =====
+We maintain a database of **300+ CIC + IC + Court rulings** at [[:cases|RTI case-law database]] — searchable by section, court, year, party.
+===== Citations and sources =====
+  * **Right to Information Act, 2005** — [[:act|full text]].
+  * **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023**, §44(3) — proviso amendment in force 14 Nov 2025.
+  * Supreme Court of India — judgment archive at [[https://main.sci.gov.in|main.sci.gov.in]].
+  * Delhi High Court — judgment archive at [[https://delhihighcourt.nic.in|delhihighcourt.nic.in]].
+===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
+  * [[:cases|Searchable case-law database (300+)]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/citation-formatter-app.html|Citation Formatter]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Builder]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter]]
+//Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.//
+{{tag>case-law landmark-rti supreme-court delhi-hc cic constitution-bench section-8 master-directory 2026}}