Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani, Information Commissioner addressed a matter with regard to the disclosure of the inspection reports of the law colleges in the public domain.

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking the following information:

  • How frequently the inspection of colleges is done by BCI.
  • Provide the list of colleges which are not found fit after inspection between 2016-20.
  • Provide the list of colleges whose affiliations were cancelled by BCI between 2016-20.
  • Provide the list of all the colleges and the members who inspected along with date and time.

Being dissatisfied with the delay in getting the information, the appellant filed a First Appeal. Further, FAA’s order upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with an instant appeal.

Appellant contended that the as on the date of hearing the BCI website did not contain any updates and urged to the Bench that the decadent lack of transparency in the functioning of BCI and the absence of inspection reports of the law colleges in the public domain caused immense agony to the student community as they were unable to make an informed decision for taking admission to the various law colleges and cited instances with respect to a bunch of law colleges in Patna wherein the High Court had to intervene and issued directions to the BCI to conduct the inspection of the colleges.

Commission took exception to the disdainful conduct of the FAA and closed the hearing proceedings.


The Commission fund no infirmity in the reply of CPIO in as much as the appellant was provided with a factual reply while also being offered an inspection of the available and relevant records.

Further, the Commission expressed that the disclosure of the inspection reports of the law colleges in the public domain would benefit the student community at large and significantly reduce the burden of RTI Applications.

For the above-stated reason, the Commission directed the FAA to place the present order before their competent authority to ensure that action is expedited with respect to the up gradation of the BCI website while also incorporating the stipulations of the Commission in H.N. Pathak v. PIO, BCI, CIC/SA/C/2016/000164, 2-1-2017.

Coram directed the CPIO to reiterate the opportunity of inspection with respect to the information sought and facilitate the same on a mutually decided date and time. Additionally,  the intimation of the date & time of the inspection shall be provided to the appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO.

Copy of documents, if any desired by the Appellant during the inspection shall be provided free of cost upto 25 pages and beyond this limit, prescribed fees may be charged as per RTI Rules, 2012 by the CPIO.

The above-said directions shall be complied within 15 days. [Prasoon Shekhar v. CPIO, BCI; 2022 SCC OnLine CIC 238; decided on 25-5-2022]

Legal RoundUpTribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

Central Information Commission (CIC)

Framework of RTI Act restricts jurisdiction of CIC to provide a ruling on issues pertaining to access/right to information, not venture into merits of case

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner), decides whether Commission can provide a ruling regarding the merits of a case or redressal of grievance.

Read more, here…

While examining the complaint, can CIC direct disclosure of information under S. 18 of RTI Act?

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) addressed a matter wherein it was alleged that the respondent intentionally provided an evasive reply by stating that the information sought was not clear, hence issue of prompt response of CPIO was raised.

Read more, here…

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

Will compensation paid by an employee to an employer for resigning from service without giving requisite notice, fall under taxable service? 

The Coram of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) reiterated that, any compensation paid by the employee to the employer for resigning from the service without giving the requisite notice, would not be termed as consideration for the contract of employment and as such, would not fall within the preview of taxable service. 

Read more, here…

Cenvat Credit is allowed on Insurance services; Tribunal sets aside penalty and interest

Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which raised the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit in respect of Input Services namely construction services, fee for architectural structural works for factory plant building, group Medi-claim Insurance, Group personal accident insurance, insurance, motor car/vehicle insurance, labour charges for installation, testing & commissioning of components of VRV System (Centrally AC system) in the office building etc.

Read more, here…

Promotional activity for IPL not covered under ‘Business Auxillary Service’; Anil Kumble not liable to pay Service Tax

The Coram of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed appeals against the order of First Appellate Authority which upheld the demand of service tax by the adjudicating authority.

Read more, here…

Competition Commission of India (CCI)

 Conduct of Zomato and Swiggy, anti-competitive? DG to investigate

The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) held that, in the case of both Swiggy and Zomato, prima facie there existed a conflict of interest situation, warranting detailed scrutiny into its impact on the overall competition between the RPs vis-à-vis the private brands/entities which the platforms may be incentivised to favour.

Read more, here…

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

Income Tax penalty cannot be invoked without relevant documents substantiating business activities

The Coram of Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Narender Kumar Choudhary, Judicial Member, observed that under the Income Tax Act penalty can’t be invoked without relevant documents which substantiate business activities.

Read more, here…

Can mere rejection of the claim by Assessing Officer, make assessee liable for penalty?

Addressing the issue, of whether mere rejection of the claim by an Assessing Officer would ipso facto make assessee liable for the penaltythe Bench of G.S. Pannu (President) and Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) held that it won’t make the assessee liable to a penalty.

Read more, here…

Whether expenditure incurred on replacements of old truck bodies will be treated as revenue expenditure?

The Bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee as such on replacement of wooden body of trucks has to be allowed fully against the income of the assessee in the current year.

Read more, here…

Delayed payment of employee’s contribution to EPF/ESIC is not disallowable as amendments to S. 36(1) (va) and S. 43B effected by Finance Act, 2021 were applicable prospectively; appeal allowed

The Coram of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -XXXVI, New Delhi passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning AY 2013-14. The instant appeal challenged the disallowance of Rs 45,60,061 on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution towards EPF and ESIC.

Read more, here…

Whether gift received from HUF to any member of HUF is exempt from taxable income?

The Coram of Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) examined the issue as to the taxability of the amount of gift received by the assessee from his ‘HUF’.

Read more, here…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

Name and Designation of Officers of IBBI is exempted under S. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

“Section 8(1)(j) exempts information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

Read more, here…

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

Fine of Rs 41.21 Crores imposed on a Government Corporation for excess mining and violation of conditions of Environmental Clearance: NGT issues 10 directions || If no fine, would rule of law be impacted? Read

While imposing a fine of Rs 41.21 crores on Singareni Collieries Company Limited, for violation of environmental clearance conditions and mining excess coal, the Coram of Justice K. Ramakrishnan (Judicial Member) and Dr Satyagopal Korlapati (Expert Member) expressed that,

“The Government Corporations are expected to be more law abiding and if any leniency or discrimination is shown for committing violation, then it is very difficult to maintain the rule of law, if any violations were committed by other persons. There will not be any moral right for the regulators to take action against others, if similar violations were committed by them.”

Read more, here…

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

If a person makes an investment in shares, will he be considered a Consumer under S. 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act? NCDRC elaborates in view of ‘earning livelihood’

Viswanath, Presiding Member, held that the complainant was not investing money in the share market exclusively for earning his livelihood, hence the same was he did not fall under the definition of Consumer.

Read more, here…

[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck

In an alleged medical negligence casethe Coram of R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr S.M. Kantikar, Member, reiterates that the “Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck.”

Read more, here…

“Negligence per se may be declared when …”: NCDRC explains in medical negligence case while awarding Rs 25 lakh compensation plus interest

While addressing a medical negligence case, the Coram of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Binoy Kumar, Member, observed that, Negligence per se is not a separate cause of action from negligence suits. Negligence per se, however, assumes the duty because of public policy or law.

Read more, here…

Due to burglary, customers lost their valuable articles from bank lockers. Will Bank be liable for deficiency in service?

The Coram of Justice R.K. Agarwal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, customer avails of Locker hiring facility is so that they may rest assured that their assets are being properly taken care of, but in the present matter, OP Bank failed to take care of the assets.

Read more, here…

Sudden cancellation of rooms booked for daughter’s marriage 3 months prior on account of maintenance: Is it an acceptable reason? Can consumers claim compensation?

“The memories of marriage ceremonies are lifetime events in the life of bride and bridegroom and their family members to make their moments memorable. In our country, certainly, it is not an easy task for the parents to arrange their daughter’s marriage in a five-star hotel in place like Jaipur or any big cities. All of sudden cancellation of booking about 3 months prior to the date of marriage on account of maintenance is not acceptable reason.”

Read more, here…

After forceps delivery, patient developed 4th degree perineal tear losing chance for normal delivery: Will doctor be liable for medical negligence?

After forceps delivery, a woman lost her control over passing urine and stool due to the negligence of a doctor, the Coram of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) upheld the decision of State Commission with respect to compensation of Rs 8 lakhs.

Read more, here…

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT)

Whether Homebuyer’s’ decision as a Class will be binding on every Homebuyer?

The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that decision taken by the class of Homebuyers will be binding on all the homebuyers.

Read more, here…

Once insolvency proceedings are put on Stay, Can resolution professionals still be entitled to fees during Stay?

In a matter with regard to fees of resolution professional, the Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that, when proceedings in a matter are put to stay, the resolution professional is not entitled to fees during the stay on insolvency.

Read more, here…

Can territorial jurisdiction of NCLT be decided on basis of a Facility Agreement between parties?

The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that, the territorial jurisdiction of NCLT to decide a case under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be taken away by the Facility Agreement between the parties.

Read more, here…

Whether fixation of salary of the MD is within the domain of IBC?

“There is no crystallised quantum of amount which can be claimed as salary/remuneration fixed by the Board of Directors as contemplated under Section 196 of the Companies Act, 2013.”

Read more, here…

Article 1 of Limitation Act deals with suits relating to accounts: NCLAT highlights scope of Art. 137 of Limitation Act

The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) observed that, provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under IBC.

Read more, here…

Jet Airways Resolution Plan’s implementation is subject to the outcome of?

The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that the implementation of the Jet Airways Resolution Plan will be subject to the outcome of appeals filed against the order of National Company Law Tribunal which approved the resolution plan for Jet Airways.

Read more, here…

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

Whether salary during notice period falls within definition of Operational Debt under IBC?

The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member and Chandra Bhan Singh, Technical Member deliberated on what amounts to a pre-existing dispute.

Read more, here…

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)

Insider Trading | SEBI’s restriction on Infosys employees for trading securities lifted by SAT: Read 5 reasons why SAT lifted restrictions

While lifting the restriction of buying or selling any securities, laid down by SEBI on employees of Infosys for allegedly violating the insider trading regulations, the Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member) reiterated the settled law that burden of proof is always upon the prosecution, SEBI to prove that he had access to UPSI.

Read more, here…

Once a statute is repealed, will subordinate legislation made under statute ceases to have effect or can it be avoided by a saving clause?

“A statute after its repeal is completely obliterated as it had never been enacted. The effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action that may have arisen under the repealed statute.”

Read more, here…

Logix Insolvent? NCLT initiates insolvency proceedings against Logix City Developers

The Coram of Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Narender Kumar Bhola (Technical Member) initiates insolvency proceedings against Logix City Developers due to default in payment.

Read more, here…

Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

If change of promoter is left to wisdom of society, it will create chaos and uncontrollable situation leaving fate of flat purchasers in doldrum

The Coram of Indira Jain J., (Chairperson) and Dr K. Shivaji, Member (A), expressed that, if the change of promoter without following the procedure prescribed under the law is left to the wisdom of society, it will not only render the relevant provisions of revocation of registration redundant but also create chaos and uncontrollable situation leaving the fate of allottees /flat purchasers in doldrum.

Read more, here…

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner), decides whether Commission can provide a ruling regarding the merits of a case or redressal of grievance.

Appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking the following information:

  1. Why my S.R. No. is getting changed? Who is responsible for this change and thereby loss incurred.
  2. Does my other benefits affect due to change of S.R. Number?
  3. My loan was on floating interesting why it is changed to fixed @9.75% without any information. Is there any circular?
  4. My E.M.I’s are always deducted from my salary and sent by my branch. Why there is a gap? Please inform the gap month.
  5. Since the E.M.I’s for the month April 2012, May 2012, June 2012, July 2012 and Aug 2012 are received by HFL Jalandhar. Why the susbsidy is not released.
  6. Our cadre loan is Rs 2075000 but still there is ex cadre loan of Rs 3583 O/S in my case.

The CPIO denied the information as sought by the appellant under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant had filed the first appeal and requested that the information should be provided to him, and FAO upheld the CPIOs response and disposed of the appeal. Further second appeal before the Commission was filed to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.


The Commission observed that the queries of the appellant were more in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO and he had expected that the CPIO should first analyse the documents and then provide information to the appellant.

CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. 

With regard to the grievance raised by the appellant regarding the reason for a change in S.R. number, Coram observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance.

Concluding the matter, the Commission held that the respondent had furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application and further forwarded his grievance to the department concerned. Therefore, no intervention was required. [Deepak Kumar Joshi v. CPIO, LIC; CIC/LICOI/A/2020/118695; decided on 1-4-2022]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In a matter wherein, details were sought with regard to Supreme Court Collegium meeting held on 12-12-2018, Yashwant Varma, J., expressed that, newspaper reports are of no evidentiary value and Courts would be clearly transgressing their well-settled limitation if cognizance were to be taken of such unsubstantiated and unverified reports.

Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Information Commission on a second appeal which was preferred. The appeal itself was directed against a response which was preferred by the competent authority for the petitioner being provided the minutes and the resolution of the meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium stated to have been held on 12-12-2018.

Chief Information Commissioner held that in the absence of any resolution being passed, the petitioner had been correctly advised that in the absence of available information, no disclosure could possibly be made.

High Court’s attention was drawn to certain newspaper reports that reported certain statements to have been made by one of the member of the Collegium who was reported to have stated that certain decisions were, taken and had expressed disappointment that the same had not been uploaded.

The collegium, undisputedly, is a multi-member body whose decisions stand embodied in resolutions that may be ultimately drawn and signed. The disclosures made by the respondents when read carefully seem to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.  

Further, it was observed that a “decision” taken by the collegium would necessarily have to be embodied in a “resolution” which is ultimately framed and signed by the members of that collective body.

That resolution alone would represent the collective decision taken or the majoritarian view which prevailed and was adopted.

The Bench stated that in the absence of any formal resolution coming to be adopted and signed by the members of the Collegium, the respondents rightly took the position that there was absence of material that was liable to be disclosed. [Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 905, decided on 30-3-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advs.

For the Respondent:


Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court:  While stating that Central Information Commission has only made recommendations, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be taken as a statute so as to give effect, the Division Bench of Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., dismissed the petition.

Present petition was filed for seeking a direction on the respondents for giving effect to the recommendation made by the Central Information Commission, one of the recommendations was to affix the postal stamp on the RTI application in the place of India Postal Order of Demand Draft.

Petitioner wants the Court to conduct a roving and fishing enquiry as to what steps were taken by the respondents based on the recommendation of the CIC.


High Court held that it cannot act as a post office to collect and exchange information.

Bench added that it is for the authorities concerned to decide what action should be taken based on the recommendation of the Central Information Commission.

In view of the above, petition was dismissed. [S.P. Muthu Raman v. Department of Personnel and Training, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1268, decided on 17-3-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Mr S.Muthuvairam for M/s R. Anand

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsCOVID 19Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Vanaja N. Sarna (Information Commissioner), observed that,

For a CPIO to be able to ascertain the impediment to life and liberty of a person, there ought to be some consideration between the information seeker and the person whose life and liberty is at stake.

Appellant in the present matter stated that a 9-member committee was set up in April 2020 to ensure the adequate availability of medical oxygen in the wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

With respect to the above, applicant sought certain information.

Due to non-provision of the information sought under Section 8(1)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act, second appeal was filed.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Commission observed that,

“…life and personal liberty are the most valuable possessions of an individual. The value for life, liberty and property are not merely a norm or a policy of the State but an essential prerequisite of any civilized society.”

Coram relied on the decision of this Commission in Venkatesh Nayak v. Department of Defence, 24-07-2019,

“Commission remarked at this instance that the instant RTI Application has been filed on the grounds that it concerns life and liberty of a person, however, it is not clear from the facts on record as to how life and liberty of a third party Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh concerns the Appellant.


 Commission clarified that it is not the locus standi vis-a-vis the RTI Act that is being questioned but locus standi of the Appellant vis-à-vis the life and liberty of Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh. In other words, Commission inquired if the affected person or his wife who allegedly filed the FIR reached out to the Appellant to pursue their case or if the Appellant is aware of what prevented the affected party or his wife from seeking this information.


 It may be noted that since every case involving the life and liberty of an individual will not invariably concern human rights violation, the considerations advanced by the Appellant to contest locus standi on the claim of human rights violation of the said officer is deemed as extraneous in the instant case.


 For a CPIO to be able to ascertain the impediment to life and liberty of a person, there ought to be some consideration between the information seeker and the person whose life and liberty is at stake.”

Further, in the matter of Sehar Singh v. PMO, while dealing with the query of “when is the question of life and liberty to be considered a matter of concern?” laid down the following parameters:

“-The RTI application be accompanied with substantive evidence that a threat to life exists (eg. Medical report).

-If, the claim of concern for life and liberty is not accepted in a particular case by the public authority, the reasons for not doing so, must be given in writing while disposing of the application.”


In the instant matter, in view of the above discussion, the Commission came to the conclusion that the Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving “life or liberty of a person” so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved.

Coram added that appellant referring to the matter as being related to the public at large, and not ‘a person’ as specified in Section 7(1) proviso and in the interest of preventing the damage caused by pandemic is not sufficient to invoke this particular clause of 48 hours reply timelines, when apparently, the Appellant failed to substantiate as to how information sought in the instant RTI Application has a bearing on his life and liberty or of any other person.

Further, the Commission stated that the appellant also failed to quote any particular instance in which any individual related to him was affected due to non-disclosure of the information. Therefore, the life and liberty of whom the appellant was pleading for was non-existent.

Though, the Commission found the matter to be of greater public interest. 

In the opinion of Commission, the matter was unprecedented and hence the appellant’s plea that disclosure of information would have helped in holding discussions with the Government is far stretched.

Whether there were enough steps taken by the authority or not in ensuring supply of medical oxygen?

Commission answered that the above-stated question was outside its jurisdiction.

Now, since the matter of life and liberty was rejected, Coram found the CPIO’s response on time. Though the delay was due to the ill health of CPIO.

Concluding the matter, Commission could not find any relation nor as a matter of fact, any justification of concerns of life and liberty of any person and therefore, there was no question of applicability of the proviso of Section 7(1).

CPIO vide letter dated 11.06.2021 had provided a cursory reply claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(a) and (d) and had failed to amplify the same with reasons. The fact of the reply being timely is justified but the denial was not justified in his reply. Further, he also failed to record his reasons for rejecting the applicant’s request to consider the same under the clause of “life and liberty”. The CPIO is, therefore, cautioned to be careful in future and ensure that he follows the provisions of the RTI Act implicitly.

CPIO contended that “…the proposals considered by the empowered group contain commercial business, technological and strategical information pertaining to several government and private entities which qualifies as commercial confidence and/or intellectual property and the disclosure of the same would impair and irreparably harm the competitive position of such government and private entities constituting third parties. Thus, such information has been exempted from being disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.”

Further it was submitted that,  High level discussions of the empowered group frequently form part of the discussions within the highest decision-making body to avert and mitigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the country and thus must be protected from disclosure given the larger intent to protect such information from being misused or being adversely used against the interest of the state.

Lastly, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide a suitable point-wise reply to appellant within 10 days. Coram added that any information if denied completely should be suitably justified with the application of the relevant clause.

In view of the above discussion, appeal was disposed of. [Saurav Das v. CPIO, DPIIT; CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/625997; decided on 29-07-2021]

Advocates before the Commission:

Appellant: Present over phone

Respondent: Karan Thapar, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, present over the phone

Tribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

Here’s a run-through of all the significant decisions covered in the month of July, 2021 under the Section of Tribunals/Commission/Regulatory Bodies.

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity


Solar Project

Whether there was bona fide delay in commissioning the solar power project?

“…allowed an appeal which was filed against the Order of Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) whereby, the Commission has held that the Applicant/Appellant was not entitled to extension of time for commissioning of solar power project in terms of the Power Purchase Agreement and Supplementary power Purchase Agreement.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3jbKtvP

Armed Forces Tribunal

War Injury Pension

Tribunal grants war injury pension to WW-2 soldier who suffered splinter wound injury in Italy

“…war injury pension to World War-2 veteran who suffered splinter wound injury in his right leg”

Read more: https://bit.ly/37cxXXi

Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Input Services

Whether distribution of credits on input services attributable to final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to turnover of each unit between manufacturing plants? Tribunal answers

“…issue involved was that the appeals was whether Parle Biscuits was justified in distributing credits on input services attributable to the final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between the manufacturing plants of Parle Biscuits and its contract manufacturing units, including Krishna Foods, under Rule 7(d) of the CENVAT Rules.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/2V5CYhG

Convenience Fee

“Convenience fee” charged by PVR for online booking of movie tickets under OIDAR category under S. 65(105) (zh) of Finance Act taxable or not? Tribunal explains

“Issue involved was related to to taxability of “convenience fee” charged by PVR Limited on its customers for online booking of movie tickets under the category of “online information and database access retrieval system” defined under section 65 (75) of the Finance Act and taxable under section 65 (105)(zh) of the Finance Act.” 

Read more: https://bit.ly/3rKRvvg

Principles of Natural Justice

Revenue has miserably failed to discharge its onus; Tribunal finds impugned order opposed to principles of natural justice



Admissibility of the Cenvat Credit in respect of outward GTA; Tribunal allows appeal


Central Information Commission

Right to Information Act

Can S. 8(1)(d), RTI Act be invoked to deny copy of thesis in view of commercial viability and to protect interests of scholar and his guide?

“…thesis publication of the research scholars cannot be reasonably even brought under any of the suo motu components of disclosure envisaged under Section 4 of the RTI Act, thereby reinforcing the proposition that the protection of Section 8 and 9 exemptions is very much available to the CPIO in the instant case.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3fbpI23

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Deficiency of Service

Will Camera Manufacturer — Nikon be liable for deficiency of service caused to a consumer who lost all his photographs due to memory card getting corrupted?

“…Nikon was neither the manufacturer, dealer, importer, wholesaler of the Memory Card which got corrupted leading to the loss of the photos.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3fbqg87

Builder-Buyer Dispute

Builder handing over possession of plot with incomplete development beyond agreed time. Is buyer entitled to refund of deposit with interest? Commission decides

“Possession of the plot land booked by the complainant was not handed over within the time agreed to despite the complainant has made the payment to the extent sought from time to time.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/2WJUV6d

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Medical Negligence

  • Can Wheelchair injuries be covered under the ambit of medical negligence?

“Wheelchairs are usually thought of a medical device that is meant to help those who are injured or have physical challenges; they can also be a source of injury when not properly used. Most wheelchair injuries that happen in a medical setting due to the negligence of medical staff and such could be easily prevented by a hospital or nursing home.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3fimrOy

  • In case a medical practitioner chooses to follow one procedure instead of another, which turned out to be a failure, Can the said act be negligent?

“…The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure that involves a higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3idk4hG

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal


Insolvency Proceedings

An Arroyo for OYO | While allowing it to work independently, closed insolvency proceedings; Disallowed external parties to impinge

“We are of the considered view that before Constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC) mere filing of a ‘Claim’ does not constitute a default per se. It is only on the basis of the ‘Claims’ that the CoC is constituted. In a catena of Judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the prime objective of the Court is not recovery, but revival”.

Read more: https://bit.ly/3rO12BU

National Company Law Tribunal

Personal Guarantor

Personal Guarantor not liable to be prosecuted under S. 95 IBC where corporate debtor concerned is not under corporate insolvency resolution process


National Green Tribunal

No Odour control system required to prevent odour from Sewage Treatment Plant. Why? NGT imposes costs on Delhi Jal Board: Why DJB is shirking its responsibility?

Mere spraying of chemical solution and other superficial steps is not effective in installing an effective odour control unit.”

Read more: https://bit.ly/3rMxOTD

National Human Rights Commission

Fr. Stan Swamy | Medical Treatment

  • Ensure every possible medical treatment to imprisoned FR. Stan Swamy as part of life saving measure and protection of his basic human rights: NHRC


Manual Scavenging

  • Manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning still remain a stinking truth of our nation: NHRC


Post-Poll Violence in West Bengal

  • NHRC refutes allegations in a section of media regarding leakage of report relating to post poll violence in West Bengal


Securities Exchange Board of India

Fraudulent Scheme

 Manipulation in prices, fraudulent scheme results in debarment-Global Infratech, Directors and 12 other entities ousted from the market


Insider Trading

Financial Racket: Kundra, Shetty into murky waters again | Imposes fine for insider trading on Viaan Industries


 Securities Appellate Tribunal


Collective Investment Scheme

Unregistered Collective Investment Scheme violative of S. 12(1)(b) of SEBI Act and Regulations, order to pay 10% p.a. interest on refundable amount not vitiated


Tribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup | June 2021

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani (Information Commissioner), harmonised the conflicting interests of the parties keeping with the letter and spirit of the Right to Information Act.

Following information was sought by the appellant:

  1. “Provide a copy of Thesis titled ‘Studies on some nitrogen fixing genes of Azotobacter vinelandi submitted/authored by Umesh Kumar Bageshwar which is catalogued in Dr Zakir Husain Library of Jamia Millia Islamia University under Access No. 130906. 
  1. If the said Thesis is not available for circulation, provide the reason(s) for inaccessibility/restricted circulation of the said Thesis with a copy of instructions, if any restricting such circulation.
  1. lf the said Thesis circulation is restricted, provide the guidelines/policy that govern restricted access in Dr. Zakir Husain Library of Jamia Milia Islamia University with a copy of categories of items that can be placed in restricted access.”

CPIO submitted that the thesis sought for by the appellant pertains to the work of a third party who had categorically informed the University not to disclose the thesis without having an NDA signed with him by the requestor concerned.

Further, CPIO explained that the averred scholar has already got a US Patent and he intends to file for an Indian Patent too with respect to the research wok documented in the averred thesis and has also apprehended that a number of foreign companies are trying to gain unrestricted access to the said work for commercially exploiting it without his consent.

In view of the commercial viability of the said thesis and the protected interest of the scholar and his guide, the FAA invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act in order to deny the information to the appellant.

Adding to the above, emphasis was laid on the point that the research scholar informed the University that if any request for access to the said thesis comes that should be facilitated through him.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Commission observed that the appellant primarily harped on the relevant University Ordinances to insist that the thesis of the averred research scholar ought to be disclosed in the public domain as once the scholar submits the thesis to the University, it ceases to be the property of the scholar and hence the consent or dissent of the said scholar is not consequential to the disclosure of the thesis in the public domain.

In Commission’s view, the arguments of the representative of the Appellant questioning the originality of the said thesis or challenging the Patent filing on the grounds that the idea invested in the thesis is no more ‘novel’ are more in the nature of self-serving arguments or at best calls for the intervention of the University administration to assess if any procedural or ethical lacunae is pertinent in the award of degree based on the averred thesis in the context of the serious allegations of the Appellant.

Coram stated that the appellant may note that merely because University Ordinance prescribes publication of the thesis does not take away the protection available to the disclosure of the same under the RTI Act if exemption of Sections 8 and 9 therein is applied and justified.

thesis publication of the research scholars cannot be reasonably even brought under any of the suo motu components of disclosure envisaged under Section 4 of the RTI Act, thereby reinforcing the proposition that the protection of Section 8 and 9 exemptions is very much available to the CPIO in the instant case.

Further, adverting to the peculiarity of the instant case in the context of the serious allegations of the Appellant and the admitted stance of the CPIO that the third party intimated that the thesis be withheld from public disclosure or publication, the Commission deemed it expedient to harmonise the conflicting interests of the parties concerned in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.

In view of the above discussion, Commission directed CPIO to provide a copy of the relevant and available instructions received from the third party requesting for the complete confidentiality of the said thesis. or in the absence of said record, any other corresponding document as available should be provided to the Appellant.

CPIO was also directed to provide the relevant and available guidelines governing restricted access of thesis submitted by the scholars of the University to the Appellant, in case the same was not available, a categorical statement shall be stated in the CPIO’s reply.

Appellant was at liberty to approach the University for the purpose of facilitating access to the thesis subject to the signing of NDA in consultation with the concerned research scholar.

Note for UGC

Instant case impliedly suggests that despite relevant University Ordinances stipulating access permission to the submitted thesis of scholars, the prerogative lies with the University to withhold one such thesis in absolute confidentiality on the grounds of commercial viability and market competition. If that be the message that the Respondent University is conveying, it may be assessed if the said prerogative of the University is backed by any UGC Regulations and if the same is conducive to the interests of the research community at large.

Hence, in regard to the above, Vice-Chancellor, JMI shall consider placing in the public domain any exceptions to the rule of granting access to the submitted thesis of the scholars in order to dispel the apprehensions of other fellow research scholars or the general public at large and to avoid casting aspersions on the work of the scholars.

In view of the above discussion, appeal was disposed of. [Rajeev Kumar v. CPIO, Jamia Milia Islamia; 2021 SCC OnLine CIC 4459; decided on 12-04-2021]

Advocates before the Commission:

Appellant: Represented by Varun Sharma, Advocate through the intra-video conference.

Respondent: Dr Shakeb Ahmad Khan, Professor & CPIO present through intra- video conference.

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Uday Mahurkar, Information Commissioner, reiterated that the candidates/students have the right to access their own answer sheets as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

In the present matter, the appellant sought the information regarding his own answer sheets which were evaluated and marked for all the subjects under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer.

Appellant submitted that he should be provided with the same as per the Supreme Court decision. Further, he added that there has been adequate suspicion that the respondent may destroy the Answer Sheets related to the LDCE – AAO, 2018 exam citing its record retention policy. But the same was denied by the respondent and an assurance was provided that no such act had been undertaken to destroy the answer sheets related to the said exam.

Commission in a plethora of earlier decisions decided that answer sheets should be furnished to the applicants in his own case and the same stand was taken by the Commission in the present matter also.

Respondent had been citing the Supreme Court’s decision in UPSC v. Agnesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530, which was limited to the Competitive Exams and did not cover the Departmental Exams per se held by the Public Authorities nor was applicable to situations where it was prima facie made out that larger public interest was involved.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Commission stated that the issue involved in the present matter of candidate’s access to his/her own answer sheet has been long settled by the Supreme Court in the decision of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein following was held:

“…every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Relevant observation from the above decision:

“11. The definition of „information‟ in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term „record‟ is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the ‘opinion’ of the examiner. Therefore, the evaluated answer-book is also an ‘information’ under the RTI Act.”

In the Supreme Court decision of Mradul Mishra v. Chairman, UPSC, Civil Appeal 6723 of 2018 it was held that:

“14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

  1. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent – U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks.” 

What is the link between the permission to access the answer sheet and the candidate’s right to life and livelihood?

Hence, in view of the above elaborative discussion, Commission held that the present issue involved larger public interest affecting the fate of all the students/candidate who wishes to obtain information regarding their own answer sheet which would have a bearing on their own career and in turn would ostensibly affect the right to life and livelihood.

Therefore, allowing a student to inspect their own answer sheet ought to be allowed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.


Therefore, in the present matter, the Commission directed the respondent to furnish a copy of the candidate’s own answer sheet as sought in the RTI Application within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order.

In view of the above, appeal was disposed of. [Venu C v. CPIO, General Manager (Finance) Postal Accounts, Department of Post; 2021 SCC OnLine CIC 4306; decided on 24-05-2021]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) held that,

“…information which is available in record or accessible by a public authority can only be provided under the RTI Act.” 

“Appellant is not just pressurizing the Respondent public authority by seeking clarification/confirmation, but also harassing them by filing multiple queries followed by reminders, e-mail communications etc.” 

“…under the provisions of the RTI Act, disclosure of information is a rule and non-disclosure is an exception.”

Information was sought by the appellant through an RTI Application. On being dissatisfied, the appellant had filed the first appeal in October, 2018 which had not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.

Appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act and sought information.

On query by the commission, appellant informed the Commission that two written submissions had been filed on his behalf, to which the Commission cautioned the appellant to desist from such practice as the same was not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.

Respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and the same was scattered in many files. He added that providing photocopies of all the information required collection/collation of data, which attracted Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

Appellant interjected to state that how the Commission can adjudicate the aspect of voluminous information. Upon query by the Commission as to on what authority he is making this statement, he failed to provide a substantiating reply. The Commission yet again cautioned the Appellant for vitiating the proceedings of the instant hearing.

Commission’s Decision

Coram noted that the appellant adopted a convoluted method to express the facts of the instant case.

Commission expressed that it is of the view that,

 As much as the CPIO has a statutory responsibility to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, applicants filing a request under RTI Act should also keep in mind that they should not transgress the letter and spirt of the RTI Act by flooding RTI Applications, which are cumbersome, protracted and circumlocutory in nature.

 Commission admonished the appellant for going beyond the stipulated word limit, which troubled the respondent to ascertain what information had been sought and pertained to which Department.

Therefore, in Coram’s opinion the appellant instead of seeking information in a reasonable and comprehensible way resorted to adopting a tortuous method containing quite a lot of issues/queries in a disorganized manner, resulting in unfathomable hurdles on the part of the respondent.

Word of Caution by the Commission

“…Appellant being a responsible citizen who poses to be concerned about the functionality of the Respondent public authority must impliedly know his limitations while filing an RTI query before any Respondent public authority.  

 Commission strictly cautions him that in future, he shall holistically adhere to the relevant provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012 while filing any RTI Application before any public authority.”

Bench stated that the Appellant’s contention was rather preposterous because mere statements such as ‘involving larger public interest’ and ‘national interest’ do not suffice and the onus to prove the same lies with the Appellant.

Commission was put into doubt about the intention of the appellant whether he genuinely wants information or just wants to harass the Respondent public authority.

Majority of queries sought by the appellant were in respect to the PIO’s confirmation regarding certain aspects such as dates pertaining to commencing and concluding of certain constructions at Naval/Coast Guard berths, names of the vendors who were awarded contracts for the aforesaid construction, date of execution of the lease agreement etc. from the Respondent.

Information: Can the appellant seek any information under the sky?

Commission pointed out that though it is not mandatory to provide reasons for seeking information under the RTI Act, but the same does not mean that an applicant can seek all/any information under the sky.

 Further, it was observed that appellant relatively misinterpreted the term “information”.

Photography: Is it allowed under the RTI Act?

In the present matter, appellant has argued that photography is allowed under the RTI Act under Section 2(j)(iv) of the RTI Act.

Bench while considering the importance of the services rendered by the respondent public authority to the country as well as considering the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application, held that photography of the averred documents/records/information cannot be allowed because the question of photography arises only if the condition of the document/record is in a dilapidated state and cannot be photocopied anymore by repeated handling.

Commission elaborated that the appellant in a cyclostyled manner framed the queries of the instant RTI Application, wherein he had specifically asked the PIO to ‘CONFIRM’ the commencing and concluding date of certain constructions, ‘CONFIRM’ whether the Respondent has a copy of the NGT’s Order pronounced on 02.09.2016 concerning to the dredging and other expansions of MPT etc., which is beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Commission opined that the appellant was only on a mission to seek vengeance or has some personal vendetta against the respondent public authority.

Appellant understood that the provisions of the RTI Act can be twisted according to his whims and fancies as well as to his requirements.

 It was added to the observations during the hearing, the Appellant rather made an attempt to mystify both the Commission as well as the Respondent by taking refuge on unconnected events or mentioning certain things without any proof.

The modus operandi adopted by the Appellant is nothing but a classic example of systematic persecution as well as wasting precious time of the public authority as well as the Commission at the cost of the public exchequer.

Commission finds that the Respondent has provided an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the relevant records, which the Appellant is contesting till date, which is rather bizarre to note.

Commission further counselled the appellant that as per Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, Parliament made amply clear that while enacting the RTI Act it had categorically provided a right to an Indian citizen that he/she shall make a request and not requests.

Adding more to its remarks, Coram noted that Appellant rather appeared to have converted the provisions of the RTI Act as a tool of oppression/intimidation, which the Commission discourages outrightly.

Enough opportunity had been provided to the appellant to inspect the relevant records which he did not avail till date, hence no illegality was found on the part of the respondent for seeking proof of citizenship because considering the importance and sensitivity of the information sought in the instant RTI Application as well as the alleged antecedents of the appellant, the respondent public authority has on a selective basis and as a matter of abundant caution sought proof of citizenship from the Appellant.

Public authority has the liberty to seek proof of citizenship from an applicant, when he/she is seeking information, at times may be sensitive from security perspective and this concern can never be disregarded.

 Keeping in view the totality of circumstances discussed above, the Commission found no infirmity in the information provided by the Respondent.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in view of the above terms. [Samir Sardana v. CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust; 2021 SCC OnLine CIC 4310; decided on 10-05-2021]

Case Briefs

Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking direction to quash the order of Central Information Commission, Jayant Nath, J. observed, “…where a public authority takes recourse to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation.”

Petitioner filed an RTI application on 05-09-2016 under Rule 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, seeking pointwise disclosure of information mentioned at serial no. 5(i) to 5(xxv). It is the case of the petitioner that the CPIO did not provide the correct information in respect of point 5(i) of the RTI application and further misled on other issues. The first appeal was filed by the petitioner on 10-10-2016 followed by a second appeal before the second appellate authority CIC. The grievance of the petitioner is precisely that, the respondent believed verbal submissions of the CPIO instead of the written submissions of the petitioner and allowed them to sustain their stand for non-disclosure by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.

Court made a passing remark on the default committed by the petitioner, by not giving the entire personal details relevant in seeking the information so made. However, it decided to examine the impugned order of the CIC only on merits.

The order of the CIC dismissing appeal rested on the fact that disciplinary proceedings, as initiated by CBI, were pending against the petitioner and therefore the matter was covered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In light of the said finding, Court referred a catena of judgments based on non-disclosure of the information under Section 8.

  1. Director of Income Tax v. Bhagat Singh, MANU/DE/9178/2007; Court observed in the words, “Under Section 8(1)(h) information can be withheld if it would impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It is for the appellant to show how and why investigation will be impeded by disclosing information to the appellant. General statements are not enough. Apprehension should be based on some ground or reason.” [Reiterated in Union of India v. Manjit Singh Bali, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10394] 
  2. Bhagat Singh v. CIC, (2008) 100 DRJ 63; Court made a significant observation with respect to the interplay of Section 3 and Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and further remarked, “Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.”
  3. S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi HC, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2592; is a case wherein the petitioner was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action and the Court therein held, “The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought “would impede the process of investigation.” The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act.”

The Court conclusively said that the impugned order only reveals that a chargesheet has been filed but no reasons are spelt out as to how the investigation might get hampered by disclosing the information as asked by the petitioner. In the absence of the same, Court directed back the matter to the CIC for consideration.[Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. Central Information Commission,2021 SCC OnLine Del 336, decided on 05-02-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., upheld that order of the Central Information Commission whereby a penalty of Rs 10000 was imposed on the petitioners for changing stands while not providing the information as sought by the applicant under the RTI Act.

The instant petition was filed by two officers working with the Union Bank of India as Central Public Information Officers (CPIO).

The above-two officers challenged the impugned Order passed by the Central Information Commission vide which penalties amounting to Rs 10,000 were imposed upon them.


An RTI application was filed by the applicant who was the Chief Manager at the Union Bank of India wherein he sought the following information:

Details of the Board approval along with justification for giving exemption with regard to 3 years branch head service.

The Office of the CPIO had informed the applicant that copy of the board note, being an internal document of commercial confidence would be exempted from disclosure.

Even the appellant authority stated that the copy of the board approval was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

In the second appeal with regard to the matter, CIC found that there was no reason why complete information was not provided to the applicant and held that the responses provided were rather incomplete and evasive. Therefore, a show-cause notice to the CPIOs of the bank was issued.

On receiving the above show cause notice, the CPIOs responded stating that the information which was sought could not be found on record. Due to the change in stand by the petitioners, CIC imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Analysis and Decision

Bench referred to this Court’s decision in R.K Jain v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10957  wherein it was recognized that the CPIO, being the custodian of information or documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information, and in cases of default, the penal action is to be invoked against the CPIO only.

In the decision of Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (WP(C) 11271/2009, decided on 1st June, 2012), the role of CPIOs under the RTI Act was elaborately dealt with.

Further, in the decision of J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India, (WP(C) 7232/2009, decided on 4th August, 2011) the Single Judge recognized that:

CPIOs/PIOs are not merely “post offices” and have a crucial responsibility in facilitating the purpose of the RTI Act.

 In light of the above decisions, the High Court laid down the following principles:

i)  CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;

ii)  A PIO/CPIO cannot be held responsible if they have genuinely rejected the information sought on valid grounds permissible under the Act. A mere difference of opinion on the part of CIC cannot lead to an imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act;

iii)  Government departments ought not to be permitted to evade disclosure of information. Diligence has to be exercised by the said departments, by conducting a thorough search and enquiry, before concluding that the information is not available or traceable;

iv) Every effort should be made to locate information, and the fear of disciplinary action would work as a deterrent against the suppression of information for vested interests;

v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided;

vi) A PIO/CPIO has to apply their mind, analyze the material, and then direct disclosure or give reasons for non-disclosure. The PIO cannot rely upon subordinate officers;

vii) Duty of compliance lies upon the PIO/CPIO. The exercise of power by the PIO/CPIO has to be with objectivity and seriousness the PIO/CPIO cannot be casual in their approach.

viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.


Hence, the Court held that under the RTI Act, the CPIOs have a solemn responsibility.

Section 5(3) requires that every CPIO or SPIO shall deal with requests for information and `render reasonable assistance’ to the persons seeking information.

CPIOs or SPIOs can seek assistance from higher/other officials in the organisation in order to enable them to furnish the information sought for the `proper discharge’ of their duties, as per Section 5(4).

 In the present matter, CPIOs changed their stands which would go on to show that there was an intention to withhold certain important documents or information, leading to the finding of mala fides and unreasonable conduct.

In light of the above, Court opined that the penalty imposed could not be faulted with. However, considering the fact that both the CPIOs since retired from the service of the Bank, the penalty was reduced to Rs 5,000 each. [Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India v. CIC, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 194, decided on 22-01-2021]

Advocates for the parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr O.P. Gaggar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr Gaurang Kanth, Standing Counsel with Mr Aman Singh Bakhshi, Advocate.

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) decide whether a legally wedded wife can seek the information regard to income tax returns of her husband under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The instant application was filed before the CPIO, Income Tax Officer seeking the following information:

  1. “The copy of Form 16 issued by the company at Micro Focus Software Development, ‘LAUREL’, Block ‘D’, 65/2, Bagmane Techpark, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru for the year filed for 2016- 17, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 of my husband Mr Suman Chatterjee.
  2. The relevant documents/papers relating to the Gross Annual Income of my husband Mr Suman Chatterjee.
  3. The relevant documents/papers relating to the Gross salary of my husband Mr Suman Chatterjee.”

The appellant filed the first appeal dated 11-01-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 05-03-2019.

Thereafter, she filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought-for information.


Commission referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 with regard to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Legal Issue to be decided

Whether the appellant claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Mr Suman Chatterjee is entitled to seek details of his income tax returns i.e. Form 16?

In regard to the above question, Commission referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Vijay Prakash v. UOI,2009 SCC OnLine Del 1731, wherein it was clarified that in a private dispute between husband and wife, the basic protection afforded by virtue of exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.

Bench noted that in the present matter, the appellant did not succeed in establishing the information sought was for a larger public purpose.

Commission decided that since the filing of income tax returns by an individual is not a public activity and rather it is in the nature of an obligation which a citizen owes to the State. The said information cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.

Further adding to the above analysis, Bench stated that according to Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005 any person other than the citizen making a request for information can be termed as ‘third party’. Therefore, appellant being a person other than the RTI applicant surely comes within the definition of ‘third party’.

Bench did not find any public interest which outweighs the harm caused in its disclosure.

In light of several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court, Commission opined that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant was not entitled to seek the details of the Income Tax returns filed by the third party, Mr Suman Chatterjee which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Another significant point to be noted was that the appellant sought the disclosure of at least the ‘gross annual income’ of her husband so that she could defend her matrimonial case. Considering the said marital discord between the husband and wife vis-à-vis her right of maintenance, Commission opined that the respondent should consider providing the numerical figures of the gross annual income of her husband.

In light of the above observations, appeal was disposed of. [Amrita Chatterjee v. CPIO, Income Tax Officer; 2021 SCC OnLine CIC 40; decided on 08-01-2021]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Suresh Chandra (Information Commissioner) observed that disclosure of the names of the donors and donees of electoral bonds from books of accounts may be in contravention of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

Facts of the Case

The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India seeking the following information:

  • Furnish me (Yearwise from 2017 to 2018) the relevant portion of Statutory Report/Audit Report/any other report/certificates submitted by Chartered Accountants relating to Electoral Bonds from the books of accounts of SBI.
  • Guidelines, Circulars, Notifications, Office Memorandum Rules and Regulations, Copy of Act etc. issued to Statutory Auditor i.e. to Chartered Accountants to conduct relating to certification/audit/signing of Balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account, Financial Statement, Trial Balance of Electoral Bonds.
  • Name and Designation of Officer who is supposed to issue Guidelines, Circulars, Notifications, Office Memorandum Rules and Regulations, Copy of Act relating to certification of Balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account, Financial Statement, Trial Balance by Statutory Report i.e. Chartered Accountants relating to Electoral Bonds.
  • Furnish me (Yearwise from 2017 to 2018) relevant portion Accounting Standards, Guidance Notes applicable to conduct the certification/audit/signing of Balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account, Financial Statement, Trial Balance of Electoral Bonds.
  • Whether the details of Donor and Donee are available to Chartered Accountants relating to Electoral Bonds while certification/audit/signing of Balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account, Financial Statement, Trial Balance of Electoral Bonds.
  • Details of Donor and Donee made available to Chartered Accountants relating to Electoral Bonds while certification/audit/signing of Balance sheets, Profit and Loss Account, Financial Statement, Trial Balance of Electoral Bonds.
  • Details of Donor and Donee of Electoral Bonds from the books of accounts of (a) SBI Mumbai Main Branch Code 00300 (b) SBI Chennai Main Branch Code 00800 (c) SBI Kolkata Main Branch Code 00001 d) SBI New Delhi Main Branch Code 00691.
  • Letter written by Election Commission to The Secretary, Legislature Department Ministry of Law and Justice, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi relating to Electoral Bonds and its impact on Transparency, corruption in India.
  • Details/Records, Correspondence and the impact of certain amendments in the Income Tax Act, the Representation of the People Act 1951 and the Companies Act 2013 to introduce/issue Electoral Bonds for funding political parties of Transparency, corruption in India.
  • Telephone No. and Email ID of CPIO and Appellate Authority as per Official Memorandum of Det of Personnel and Training available on www.rti.gov.in>Circulars.

Dissatisfied with the response, the instant second appeal was filed before this Commission.

Appellant submitted that CPIO’s response was wrong, incomplete and misleading.

Further, the appellant pleaded that the SBI was supposed to uphold public interest and not the interest of political parties and that the SBI was not in fiduciary capacity with any political party and hence had no legal duty to maximize the benefit of any public sector or private sector bank; there was no relationship of “trust” between them.

Adding to the above, appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

With respect to point nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI application it was stated that the information in respect to those points was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of RTI Act; information in respect of point no. 11 of the RTI application was not covered within the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act and no link was maintained in respect of point no. 12 of the RTI Application.

The FAA held that the information relating to electoral bonds issued to various political parties sought by the appellant was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and hence was denied to the appellant.


Commission of perusal of the facts and circumstances observed that the respondent revisited the RTI application and reiterated its earlier stand in respect of pint nos 6 and 7 of RTI application that disclosure of the information was exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

Bench upheld the respondent’s contention that the disclosure of the names of the donors and donees of electoral bonds from books of accounts may be in contravention of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

While parting with order, Commission stated that there appeared no larger public interest overriding the right to privacy of the concerned donor and donees.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed. [Vihar Durve v. CPIO, SBI; 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 1327; decided on 21-12-2020]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) decided whether disclosure of income tax returns of the husband to wife under RTI Act is permissible or not.

Appellant had filed an application before the CPIO, Income Tax, Jodhpur seeking information with regard to the income tax returns filed by Mohammed Rafique for the period of 2017 to 2018.

Being dissatisfied from non-provision of the requested information, the appellant approached the Commission by filing a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act.


Commission on perusal of the records observed that the information sought by the appellant regarding the copies of income tax return of her husband, etc. is personal information of the third party which cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Further, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012, decided on 03-10-2012wherein it was held that:

14. “The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

However, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 373 and Sunita Jain v. BSNL, WA No. 170 of 2015, decided on 15-05-2018, had in a matter where the information seeker had sought the salary details of her husband from the employer held as under:

“While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the respondent No. 1 is getting. Present case is distinguishable from the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and therefore the law laid down by their Lordships in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.341/2008. Similarly, the W.A. No.170/2015 is also allowed and the impugned order passed in W.P. No.1647/2008 is set aside.”

Bombay High Court’s decision in Rajesh Ramachandra Kidile v. Maharashtra SIC, WP No. 1766 of 2016, dated on 22-10-2018.

In view of the above-stated analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with Public Authority for the period of 2017-18, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.

In view of the above observations, the appeal was disposed of. [Rahmat Bano v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 1119, decided on 06-11-2020]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) addressed the instant matter and highlighted the essence of provisions of Right To Information Act, 2005 in regard to third-party information.

Appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information officer, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking information regarding last five years Audit Report (2012-2017) of Betsy Elizabeth Trust.

On not receiving the requisite information, appellant filed the first appeal, later the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission was filed on the ground of not receiving the information.


Commission observed that the appellant sought information related to Audit report (2012-2017) of Betsy Elizabeth Trust from the respondent public authority.

Further, the Commission noted that the respondent sought consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act from the third party and the said assesses denied disclosure of their information to the appellant.

Adding to the above, Commission opined that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is personal information of the third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Issue regarding “Personal Information”

Bench noted that the issue regarding the “personal information” held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal information held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity. In regard to the said point, Delhi High Court’s decision in Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, (2015) 216 DLT was referred.

Commission also examined the nature of “fiduciary relationship” involved in the instant matter whereby the information of profitability of Prime Meiden Limited company was sought which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

While concluding the instant matter, the Commission observed that no larger public interest was disclosed by the appellant, hence CPIO’s response was agreed by the bench.

Lastly, the Commission observed that there was a delay in seeking consent from the third party and even more the respondent waited for two long years for the reply of the third party. The respondent should have adhered to the timelines of the RTI Act.

In view of the above observations, the appeal was disposed of. [J. Vinoth Priyakumar v. CPIO, 2020 SCC OnLine CIC 1120, decided on 06-11-2020]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Divya Prakash Sinha (Information Commissioner) considered whether Sri Vedapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devsthanama will be a public authority under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act.

M. Vaikunth, Counsel for the respondent stated that Sri Vedapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devsthanam, Pondicherry is not a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act in the light of a Kerala High Court judgment, hence they are not supposed to provide information.

Commission on 07-11-2019 had observed that PIO had already provided a response to the appellant with regard to renovation works, donation, details of costs for various preparation made for Kumbabishekam etc. at Sri Vedapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devsthanam.

At the stage of the second appeal, it was averred that Sri Vedapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devsthanam is not a Public Authority, hence, outside the purview of the RTI Act.

In view of the above-stated, Commission in its interim decision had directed the respondent to send a written submission highlighting the factum as to how the averred Devasthanam is exempt under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act alongwith relevant legal citation/proposition in support of their arguments.


On perusal of the contentions of both the parties, Commission observed that appellant largely relied on conjecture suggesting the evasiveness towards transparency, alleged vested interest or rather deliberate conduct of the Executive Officer in withholding the information and has even questioned the merits of the appointment of the present Executive Officer.

Adding to the above, the Commission stated that no substantial submission was put forward by the appellant to prove that the respondent’s office is covered under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Commission held that in the absence of any substantial argument of the appellant to prove that the respondent temple is a public authority as per Section 2(h) of RTI Act, the ratio laid down in Kerala High Court’s decision in A.C. Bhanunni v. Commr.,Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments dated 11-03-2011, as well as Hyderabad High Court’s decision of G. Rajenderanath Goud v. Government of A.P. on 14-11-2018, restrict the amenability of Respondent temple to the provisions of RTI Act.

Hence, Sri Vedapureeswarer Sri Varadaraja Perumal Devasthanam cannot be deemed as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. [S Suresh v. CPIO, CIC/UTPON/A/2018/620714, decided on 31-08-2020]

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Attention has been drawn to media reports regarding orders passed by Central Information Commission regarding an RTI query with regard to AarogyaSetu App. As per the orders, of the CIC, CPIOs of MeitY, NeGD and NIC have been directed to appear on 24-11-2020. MeitY is taking necessary steps to comply with the orders of the CIC.

With regard to the above, it is clarified that there should be no doubt with regard to the AarogyaSetu App and its role in helping contain COVID-19 Pandemic in India. As was announced through Press Releases and Social Media posts on 2-04-2020, AarogyaSetu App was launched by Government of India in public-private partnership mode to bring people of India together in its fight against COVID19. The AarogyaSetu App was developed in a record time of around 21 days, to respond to the exigencies of the Pandemic with Lockdown restrictions only for the objective of building a Made in India Contact Tracing App with the best of Indian minds from Industry, Academia and Government, working round the clock to build a robust, scalable and secure App. Since 2-04-2020, regular press releases and updates have been issued on AarogyaSetu App including making the source code available in Open-domain on 26-05-2020. The names of all those associated with the development of the App and management of the App ecosystem at various stages was shared when the code was released in Open/Public Domain and the same was shared widely in media also.

The same can be accessed on https://github.com/nic-delhi/AarogyaSetu_Android/blob/master/Contributors.md. On all such occasions, it has been clearly mentioned that the AarogyaSetu App has been developed by NIC in collaboration with volunteers from Industry and Academia. AarogyaSetu app has been developed in the most transparent manner and all details and documents including Privacy Policy and AarogyaSetu Data Access & Knowledge Sharing Protocols issued on 11th May 2020 has been uploaded on the AarogyaSetu Portal – aarogyasetu.gov.in. The portal has all details about the App including those regarding How the App works, COVID updates and Why one should use AarogyaSetu. Regular updates about AarogyaSetu App have been shared on all Social media platforms as also Government portals. Several TV shows and media briefings also have shared complete details about the App, it’s development and how it is assisting the fight against COVID19.

As has been mentioned earlier, the App has been developed in a collaborative effort of Government and Private Sector. The App has been downloaded by more than 16.23 Cr users and has greatly augmented the efforts of front line health workers in the fight against COVID-19. It has helped identify Bluetooth contacts of COVID positive users and issued alerts for helping people to stay safe. These Bluetooth contacts have been advised for caution, quarantine or testing depending on the extent of exposure to COVID-19 positive user. Amongst those who have been advised testing, almost 25% have tested positive. This is much higher compared to the overall positivity rate of 7-8%. Thus, the efficiency of testing has gone up with AarogyaSetu. In addition, AarogyaSetu ITIHAS interface with location data has helped identify emerging hotspots where proactive steps have been taken by Health authorities and administration in order to contain the spread of the Virus. Thus, AarogyaSetu has proved to be very useful in India’s fight against COVID-19. Recently, WHO has also appreciated the role of AarogyaSetu in containing the pandemic in India.

Ministry of Electronics & IT

[Press Release dt. 28-10-2020]

Central Information Commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner), came down heavily on CPIO, All India Radio for abdicating his duties.

Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on the following points:

  1. “Have the security personnel, i.e., armed and /or unarmed security guards and security supervisors ever been deployed in All India Radio Directorate premises through any private security agency sponsored by Director General of Resettlement (DGR).
  2. If so, was the extra amount such as Relieving Charges etc. paid to the security agency for the arrangement of substitute of the Guards availing weekly off or other holidays as admissible to him/them in accordance with DGR guidelines.
  3. In the event of payment of extra amount such as Relieving Charges etc., how were the substitutes of the Guards or by extra hours of duty by any other guards within the contracted strength of Guards.
  4. In the event of the arrangement of substitute of any Guard proceeding on admissible weekly off/holiday from within their contracted strength of Guard, how was the payment against extra hours of duty performed by such guards regulated by payment of overtime or from payment of Relieving Charges etc.”

Instant RTI application was transferred by the RTI Cell to S.K. Tiwary, DDA (Archives) DG: AIR. CPIO had informed the appellant that AIR: Installations/transmitters were covered under the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 and therefore were prohibited places. Further CPIO stated that the information sought at point 1 to 4 were in the form of query which could not be replied by the CPIO as per the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.

Present second appeal was filed in light of unsatisfactory reply being furnished by the respondent.

Bench observed that the denial of the information by the respondent was only based on the argument that the disclosure of information may jeopardize the safety and security of AIR: installations and accordingly he invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

Section 22 of the RTI Act was referred, which stated as follows:

“22. Act to have overriding effect – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”

Bench stated that the implication of the above Section has to be read into the present matter, wherein, even if the protocol of any other nature subsisted, it was the statutory duty of the CPIO to respond on the RTI application by either providing the information or denying it under appropriate exemption clause of the RTI Act.

Since no reasonable justification was given by the CPIO, Commission attributes the mala fide intention of the CPIO per se in the deemed refusal.

Commission warned the CPIO to remain careful in future while dealing with the matter under the RTI Act.

CPIO is not at liberty to rely on other law/rules/orders/circulars for the time being in force, in matters of RTI Act. It is a statutory duty cast upon him to affect relevant provisions according to the circumstances and he cannot abdicate his powers enlarged unto him under RTI Act, as has been done in the instant case.

Supreme Court’s observation in the matter of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,2009 SCC OnLine Del 2714, held that:

“There can be no doubt that the Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception.”

Hence, in view of the above CPIO was directed to provide relevant information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application. [Rajesh Babu v. CPIO, Asstt. DG (Security) Prasar Bharati, (India’s Public Service Broadcaster), Directorate General, All India Radio; Second Appeal No. CIC/DGAAR/A/2018/635823; decided on 07-10-2020]