Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Assuming that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner to that extent, an isolated instance of negligence as alleged against the petitioner cannot be a reason to decline approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal which was made after a due selection process.”
“Prima facia, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument that the publication of his name in the newspaper clipping, has resulted in a violation of human rights as the same has harmed his dignity and professional standing.”
The Central Information Commission condemned the lack of adherence to the RTI Act provisions and the inadequate checks and balances within the system.
The Court stated that requiring TRAI to retrieve information about individual complaints from Telecom Service Provider will impose an impractical and onerous burden on the TRAI. With a workforce of merely 170 employees, the TRAI lacked the operational capacity to manage or compile data related to the grievances of over 900 million telecom subscribers.
“No doubt, it is true that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same.”
‘The information concerning law enforcement operations, especially those involving national security considerations, falls under purview of Section 8(1)(a).’
The formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is in the exercise of supervisory powers of Central Information Commission and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers.
“Administrative bodies must have the freedom to establish and implement internal procedures and regulations that best suit their unique mandates and operational needs”
As per the petitioner, the society is an autonomous body and is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
“The Court has unfortunately been coming across various cases where abuse of Right to Information has led to paralysis and fear among Government officials.”
“The power to strike down offending law is a scalpel, not a machete.”
The Delhi High Court stated that the Constitution of India conferred a large gamut of rights upon Indian citizens and there existed a smaller bouquet of rights which were also recognised and conferred in respect of non-citizens.
A combined reading of the provisions of the RTI Act and the observation of the Supreme Court crystalizes the interpretation and meaning of the word ‘information’ as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act which only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority.
Mehul Choksi banned from SEBI for 10 years; SC acted in violation of the provisions of Constitution: CIC; No prohibition on advocate to represent different company in separate proceedings filed under Section 7 IBC; Interim directions to Gurugram Municipal Corporation vis-a-vis banned foreign dog breeds and increased cases of pet and stray dog menace; and more
Central Information Commission: In the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
Central Information Commission: In the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
Central Information Commission: In a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on
Kerala High Court: In a case challenging the validity of Rule 12 of the Right to Information (Subordinate Courts and
First Appellate Authority, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI): Santosh Kumar Shukla, First Appellate Authority, observed that the name and designation
Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner), decides whether Commission can provide a ruling regarding the merits of a case