Differences

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

--- rules:sc [2015/09/05 05:26] – Shrawan
+++ rules:sc [2015/09/05 05:57] – Shrawan
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Supreme Court of India ======
 {{tag>Court Rules}}
+{{:rules:supreme_court_of_india_-_200705.jpg?460|Supreme Court of India (Source: Wikipedia commons) Photo: Legaleagle86)}}
 **Right to Information Act, 2005**
@@ Line 41: / Line 42: @@
 ===== Downloads =====
   - {{:rules:supreme_court_rules_1966.pdf|The Supreme Court Rules 1966}}
-  -
+  - {{:downloads:act:rules:andhrapradesh:rtiact-hindi.pdf|RTI Act in Hindi}}
 ===== External Links =====
@@ Line 52: / Line 53: @@
   - [[http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pendingstat.htm|Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Cases.]]
-Analysis of Supreme Court RTI Rules and Procedure
+===== Analysis of Supreme Court RTI Rules and Procedure =====
   - the applicant who sought this information in 2009 had to wait until 2014 just to get the Delhi High Court to rule that the SC may provide the information. Read the decision [[http://www.cic.gov.in/HC-Rulings/HighCourtJudgementdt.04.12.2004caseSCregistryVsCommodorelokeshBatra.pdf|here]]!
   - On 10th November 2007, Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an RTI request with the SC asking for information concerning declaration of assets by Supreme Court Judges, among other things. The PIO denied the request, claiming he did not hold the information. Agrawal filed a first appeal asking that his application may be transferred to the Public Authority holding the information. The Registrar asked the PIO to re-consider the request, but he denied the information again. Agrawal moved the Central Information Commission (CIC) which in January 2009, asked the PIO to furnish the information [PDF].The SC challenged this order twice before the Delhi High Court (HC) even as it made some information about judges’ assets public on its website, but the HC upheld the CIC’s ruling. Read the decision [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/FB-06012009-01.pdf|here]]!
   - On 20th February 2008, Satnam Singh, a prisoner in Ludhiana’s Central Jail sent a Right to Information (RTI) request to the Supreme Court (SC) asking for a copy of its guidelines on police reforms. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the SC denied the request and referred Singh to the SC website. Singh filed a first appeal pointing out that as a prisoner, he had no access to a computer, and that, by not sending him the information, the SC was denying him his right. Hearing the appeal, the Registrar, SC too denied the request, now asking him to apply under the Supreme Court Rules 1966, instead of the RTI Act.
+  - The Supreme Court Rules 1966 Rule XII {{:rules:rulexii-of-supreme-court-rules-1966.png|}}
   - [[http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/rti/rti_in_the_judiciary_series_1.pdf|An Analysis of the RTI Rules of the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the Subordinate Courts]]
+  - The Commission respectfully disagrees with the decision of the then Chief Information Commissioner that the PIO, Supreme Court may choose to deny the information sought under the RTI Act and ask an applicant to apply for information under Order XII of the SC Rules.[[http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-15/news/29545724_1_rti-act-pio-central-information-commission|Supreme Court cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC]]
+  - [[http://thewire.in/2015/09/03/the-supreme-court-still-adamantly-refuses-to-yield-to-rti-9856/|The Supreme Court Still Adamantly Refuses to Yield to RTI]]