Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14026 (5.52 seconds)
Documents citing The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009

University Of Delhi vs Neeraj & Anr on 25 August, 2025

162. Again, the said direction is completely de-hors the provisions of the RTI Act. As observed in Central Board of Secondary Education & Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others (supra) and reiterated in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra), the RTI Act cannot be construed so as to impose an obligation on any public authority to collect or collate any non-available information. The relevant observations are as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 112 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

State vs . Subhash Chand on 1 February, 2019

15. Furthermore, a statement made by the accused, in an answer to a question put to him while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he stated that, "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I have taken proper precautions. The accident caused due to negligence of deceased " and taking into FIR No. 319/2008, PS Tilak Marg State Vs. Subhash Chand 5/10 account the various suggestions put by the counsel for accused in cross-examination to the prosecution witness, whereby it was suggested that the deceased was trying to alight from a moving bus etc., in the opinion of this court, sufficiently go on to prove that the deceased was indeed travelling in the offending vehicle and the cause of death his death is due to the accident as alleged by the prosecution, i.e. due to falling from the moving bus.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs Kabir Shankar Bose & Ors on 22 December, 2023

33. He has further argued that the judgment of this Court in Poorna Prajna Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors. (supra) was pronounced before the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra); Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (supra); and Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (supra), even otherwise is not a good law.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Chanchal Verma vs South East Central Railway on 2 March, 2026

9. The Commission notes that salary particulars, including detailed pay slips, constitute personal information relating to an individual employee. Such information includes details of earnings, deductions, income tax, provident fund contributions and other financial particulars, disclosure of which would amount to an invasion of the privacy of the concerned employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has categorically held that personal information relating to service records, salary, assets, etc., is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless larger public interest is established. The said principle has been consistently reiterated in subsequent judgments including Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Bishnoi vs Competition Commission Of India on 6 August, 2025

The Appellant has submitted a written submission dated 11.07.2025 reiterating his query, supporting the same by his claims and contentions. He has attempted to distinguish his case from the decision in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhas Chandra Agarwal & Ors; stating that he has sought total amount of expenditure and not medical bills on record, hence the aforementioned decision cited by the Respondent and the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act are not applicable in his case.
Central Information Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H Samariya - Full Document

Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020

26. The preamble to the RTI Act suggests that the Act was enacted “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority…….”. The Act was enacted by keeping in view the right of “an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed…..”. The preamble opens with a reference to the Constitution having established a democratic 21 republic and the need therefore, for an informed citizenry. The preamble reveals that legislature was conscious of the likely conflict with other public interest including efficient operations of the Governments and optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and the necessity to harmonise these conflicting interests. A citizen of India has every right to ask for any information subject to the limitation prescribed under the Act. The right to seek information is only to fulfill the objectives of the Act laid down in the preamble, that is, to promote transparency of information.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 59 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sankar Prasad Rath vs Indian Institute Of Technology (Iit), ... on 30 April, 2025

In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards the following excerpt from the same judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mathews J. Nedumpara vs The Hon'Ble Chief Justice on 6 August, 2015

"That on a holistic reading of the said judgment, it appears to us that the Court was mainly dealing with the question as to whether any immunity could be claimed from production of the records in respect of the correspondence between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India and the relevant notings made by them in regard to the transfer of a High Court Judge including the Chief Justices of the High Court which were extremely material for deciding whether there was full and effective consultation? It is observed at more than one place that the non-disclosure of the said documents would seriously handicap the petitioner therein in showing that there was no full and effective consultation with the Chief Justice of India or that the transfer was by way of punishment and not in public interest. It is observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next