Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A perusal of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, would indicate that it is not only funding, but also control, which would have to be considered to determine whether it is a public authority or not.”
The Court concluded that all three limbs of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act — ownership, control, and substantial financing, stood satisfied in the case of CIAL. Hence, CIAL was held to be a “public authority” within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and was amenable to the obligations of information disclosure under the provisions and rigours of the Act.
“Without this land, the very existence of the Club would fall into doubt inasmuch as no activities of the Club could be carried out without this land being available to it.”
The Delhi High Court said that CIC can only deal with issues relating to information sought under the RTI Act or any other issue that leads to dissipation of information as sought by the applicant.
“The power to strike down offending law is a scalpel, not a machete.”
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government- entity which has been subsequently privatized and no longer performs any public duty.
Uttaranchal High Court: Sudhanshu Dhulia J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the
Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) held that, “…information which is available in record or accessible by a public authority
Central Information Commission (CIC): Divya Prakash Sinha (Information Commissioner) considered whether Sri Vedapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devsthanama will be a public authority under Section
Central Information Commission (CIC): Y.K. Sinha (Information Commissioner), reiterated the Commission’s position that, offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Governors, Lt. Governors
Kerala High Court: T.V. Anilkumar, J. dismissed the writ petition with all interlocutory applications declared closed. In the present case, the petitioner
Karnataka High Court: Alok Aradhe, J. while disposing of this petition granted the petitioner the liberty to assail the order by which
Central Information Commission (CIC): The Commission recently dealt with an appeal seeking information on the provisions/guidelines under which BCCI represents INDIA also
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench comprising of S. Ravindra Bhat and Sunil Gaur, JJ., gave different opinions as to whether Prime
Delhi High Court: The Court set aside an earlier order of the Central Information Commission declaring ministers in the Union government and all
Central Information Commission: The Commission was hearing an appeal from an RTI applicant who sought information from Delhi Soccer Association (DSA) regarding
Central Information Commission: The appellant had approached the CIC praying to recognize the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black money of the