Important Judgments in RTI

Petition was filed for disclosure of a report submitting by a committee established by the Union of India and popularly known as “Vohia Committee”. The committee was set upon to take urgent s____ of all available information about the activities & links of all mafia organisation. Durly July, 1995 a known Political activist Naina Sahni was murdered and one of the person arrested happened to be a politician; a newspaper report published a series of articles on criminalisation of parties. The attention of the masses was drawn towards ‘Vohia Committee Report’. It was suspected that the content of the reports were such that the Union Govt. was reluctant to make in public. The Report was placed before the parliament. In this case, the Court dealt with Citizen’s ‘Right to Freedom of Information’ and observed that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Govt., which is elected by them.Read More...

This landmark judgement is generally considered as having broken new grounds and having added a fresh, liberal dimension to the need for increased disclosure in matters relating to Public affairs. It was decided by the Seven Judges Constitution Bench that disclosure of documents relating to the affairs of state involves two competing dimension that is:- (i) the right of citizen to obtain disclosure of information; (ii) the right of the state to protect information relating to its crucial affairs. It was held that whether or not to disclose information, a Judge must balance the competing interests (mentioned above) and make his final decision, depending upon facts involved in each case.Read More...

The appellants i.e. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (“PUCL”) had sought for disclosure of a report prepared by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (“AERB”) envisaging issues relating to purported safety violations and defects on various nuclear installations & Power Plants across the country. It was contended by UOI that the report was classified as “Secret” as it pertains to several sensitive facilities carried out dummy nuclear installation and raised a plea of privilege in relation to the said report. Privilege Heed:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for determining a question when a claim of privilege is made the following question when a claim of privilege is made the following questions need to be answered:- (i) whether the document in respect of which privilege is claimed, relation to affairs of any state? And (ii) whether the disclosure of the contents would be against public interest. Based on the aforementioned test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the oRead More...

The Supreme Court, in “State of U.P. v. Raj Narain” – a 1974 case, recognized the ‘right to know’ as a right inherent in Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Following this, a plethora of case the right to information was recognize as a right implicit in the article 19(a) and in article 21 (fundamental right to life and personal liberty).Read More...

5. Canara Bank V/s CIC (H.C. Kerala) Employee of Canara Bank asked for details of employees transfer, postings, promotions etc. Information was denied on the ground that the information sought falls under the purview of Sec. 8 of R.T.I. Act, 2005 which deals with ‘conditions under which the disclosure of Information is exempted’. CIC overruled Canara Bank filed a petition in the High Court. High Court held that details have to be disclosed.Read More...

6. Hemani Malhotra & Vineeta Goyala V/s High Court of Delhi. Petitioners appeared for the exam of Delhi Higher judicial service, which is conducted out two stages i.e. (i) Written examination (ii) viva voce. Results of the written of the written examination were not disclosed and the petitioners were directly called for viva-voce. After, viva-voce the name of the petitioners did not appear on the merit list. Petitioners filed an application R.T.I. demanding information about the written result. PIO did not supply most of the information on the pretext of confidentiality. High Court directed the Registrar to supply the information of the written result.Read More...

Read More...

Read More...

xxxxxRead More...