Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) addressed a matter wherein it was alleged that the respondent intentionally provided an
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, RTI Act is a tool that facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically, the
Central Information Commission (CIC): Saroj Punhani (Information Commissioner), harmonised the conflicting interests of the parties keeping with the letter and spirit of
Central Information Commission (CIC): Uday Mahurkar, Information Commissioner, reiterated that the candidates/students have the right to access their own answer sheets as
Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) held that, “…information which is available in record or accessible by a public authority
Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., partly allowed an appeal which was filed challenging an order passed by the State Information