Right to

Information Laws

Prof. S.M. Aamir Ali

2
 CASES
• RK JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA
• SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL V. LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT.
• CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER V. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
• UPSC V. ANGESH KUMAR, 2018
• CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER V. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
• UNION OF INDIA V. PRAMOD JUMAR JAIN, 2013
• NARESH TREHAN V. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, 201
• RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA V. PIO, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
• RK JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2013) 14 SCC 794
– INFORMATION SEEKING ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORT WHETHER EXEMPTED OR NOT?
– WHETHER DISCLOSURE OF THE ANNUAL CONDIFENTIAL REPORT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
– COURT HELD THE DISCLOSURE ANY DETAILS LIKE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, CENSURES,
PUNISHMENTS, OR ANY REMARKS IS PURELY WITHIN THE ORGANISATION AND BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE AND GOVERNED BY THE SERVICE RULES.
– COURT STATED THAT THIS IS PERSONAL INFORMATION WHICH CANNOT BE DISCLOSED.
– ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX RETURNS, LIABILITIES, OR ASSETS ARE ALL
CLASSIFIED UNDER THE PERSONAL INFORMATION.
– DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD CAUSE UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY
OF THAT INDIVIDUAL.
• SUBASH CHANDRA AGARWAL V. LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT. DELHI HIGH COURT JULY, 2,
2019
– QUESTION INVOLVED – WHETHER THE CONSULTATIONS AMONG THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION,
LEADER OF THE HOUSER AND SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA ABOUT EXTENSION OF TENURE OF
LOK SABHA SECRETARY GENERAL CONSTITUTES BREACH OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE?
– DUTY OF CIC TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY INFORMATION SOUGHT IS PRIVILEGED OR NOT.
– EXTENSION OF TENURE OF SECRETARY GENERAL T K VISHWANATHAN AND THE
CONSULTATIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS CONCERNED.
– CIC PLACED MAGTTER BEFORE THE SPEAKER TO DECIDE WHETER RELEASING INFORMATION
WOULD CONSTITUTE BREACH OF PRIVILEGE UNDER ARTICLE 105 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
– APPEAL TO HIGH COURT – FRAMED FIVE ISSUES AND DECIDED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS
NOT EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.
• CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER V. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL.
– SC AGARWAL FILED 3 APPLICATIONS SEEKING INFORMATION REALTING TO APPOINTMENT,
ASSETS OF JUDGES AND COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO A HIGH COURT JUDGE.
– THREE APPEALS FOLLOWED BASED ON THE REJECTION OF INFORMATION BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER.
– RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES – CIC DIRECTED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
– RELATING TO ASSETS OF JUDGES – PIO REFUSED, CIC ORDERED FOR PRODUCTION, HIGH
COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIC.
– RELATING TO LETTERS – PIO REFUSED TO, CIC ORDERED.
– APPEAL TO HIGH COURT AND DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT.
– APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL.
• CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER V. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA 04.03.2020.
– RTI APPLICATION SEEKING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFIED COPIES OF A JUDGMENT.
– FOLLOWING RULES 149 AND 154 OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT RULES, THIRD PARTY AFFIDAVIT
HAS TO BE FILED.
– INCONSITENCY BETWEEN THE TWO LAWS I.E., RTI AND GUJARAT HC RULES.
– SEEKING INFORMATION CANNOT BE CURTAILED BY THE RULES IN CONTRAVENTION TO RTI
ACT.
– COURT HELD TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION/OBTAIN THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS,
ORDERS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS.
– COURT COCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE RTI ACT AND HC
RULES.
• UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. ANGESH KUMAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
2018.
– WRIT PETITIONERS CONSIST OF CANDIDATES THAT WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN CLEARING THE
UPSC (PRELIMINARY) EXAMINATION, 2010.
– PETITIONED HC SEEKING DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND HC DIRECTED THE UPSC TO
DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION WITHIN 15 DAYS.
– UNDER THE RTI ACT, A CLEAR DISTINCTION OF MARKS, CUT-OFFS AND OTHER RANKINGS
SHOULD BE MADE EASILY AVAILABLE TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY IN THE EDUCATION
SYSTEM.
– CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR. V. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY AND ORS
(2011) 8 SCC 497 THROUGH WHICH IT STATES THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO DIFFERNCIATE
BETWEEN INFORMATION THAT IS IN PUBLIC INTEREST OR NOT
• SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA V. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. CIC MANU/CI/2237/2011
– APPLICATION FILED SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT KEY MAN POLICIES IN A SPECIFIC ZONE OF
THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION.
– SOUGHT INFORMATION OF OVER 20 YEARS AND INFORMATION ABOUT SIPHONING OF MONEY
AND EVASION OF TAXES.
– REFINED SOME OF THE INFORMATION WHICH SIEVED FROM TENS OF LAKHS TO FEW LAKHS.
– STAND OF LIC IN A FIDUACIRY CAPACITY.
– DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION DENIED BY THE COMMISSION.
• BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI AND ANOTHER
2012.
– APPLICANT SOUGHT INFORMATION SEEKING THE DETAILS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
WHO DID THE VIVA VOCE FOR THE BPSC.
• UNION OF INDIA V. PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN 2013.
– APPLICATIONS SOUGHT INFORMATION FROM CPIO OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING.
– COPIES OF DPC PROCEEDINGS AND NOTINGS OF DPC PROCEEDINGS FROM THE STAGE OF
DPC UPTO THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF PANEL BRINGING OUT THE CAUSE OF OMISSION OF
CERTAIN NAMES INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT FROM THE APPROVED PANEL.
– INFORMATION NOT DISCLOSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE INFORMATION IS EXEMPTED AND
CANNOT BE DISCLOSED.
– QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS CLASSIFIED AS CONFIDENTIAL
AND ADVISE TO THE PRESIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 74 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA.
• NARESH KUMAR TREHAN V. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, 2015.
– DISCLOSURE OF INCOME TAX RETURNS IN AN RTI APPLICATION.
Thank You!