Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Manjit Singh Bali on 6 August, 2018

Shashi Shekhar vs Department Of Revenue on 7 August, 2023

In the event that the disclosure of the records is found to be squarely hit by the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the CPIO will provide a revised reply incorporating a proper justification for the same after taking into consideration the citation referred to by the Appellant in the matter of Union Of India vs Manjit Singh Bali (cited in the reproduced text of the grounds of second appeal above.) Here the Appellant must keep in mind that considering the lack of specifics in the information sought for at para (c), the liberty as mentioned in the preceding para ought to be accorded to the CPIO to revisit the matter.
Central Information Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 8 June, 2021

Clearly the PIO has not bothered to either apply his mind while claiming the exemption nor justified such denial before this Commission. Apart from the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Srivastava vs. CIC, cited by the Appellant, in numerous decisions of the Delhi High Court like Bhagat Singh vs. Chief InformationCommissioner & Ors.,; Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors; Union of India vs. Manjit Singh Bali; B.S. Mathur Vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court and many decisions of the Central Information Commission, it has been held repeatedly that disclosure of information should be the norm under the RTI Act and exemption from such disclosure should be only under exceptional circumstances, only when justified by the respective public authority. In the decision of Bhagat Singh, the Delhi High Court had discussed it appropriately in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varun Krishna vs Delhi Police on 18 July, 2022

Clearly the PIO has not bothered to either apply his mind while claiming the exemption nor justified such denial before this Commission. Apart from the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Srivastava vs. CIC, cited by the Appellant, in numerous decisions of the Delhi High Court like Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.,; Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors; Union of India vs. Manjit Singh Bali; B.S. Mathur Vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court and many decisions of the Central Information Commission, it has been held repeatedly that disclosure of information should be the norm under the RTI Act and exemption from such disclosure should be only under exceptional circumstances, only when justified by the respective public authority. In the decision of Bhagat Singh, the Delhi High Court had discussed it appropriately in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Khemka vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 17 February, 2026

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2024 before the UT Chandigarh- - Police on the ground that the CPIO has not explained as to how the information sought would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. He has accordingly claimed that reliance placed by the PIO on clause (h) of section 8 (1) is not sustainable referring to four landmark decisions, viz. i) UOI vs. Manjit Singh Bali, 2018 SCC Online Del 10394; ii) Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors. MANU/DE/9178/2007; iii) Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. (2008) 100DRJ 63 and iv) B S Mathur vs. PIO of Delhi High Court (2011)125 DRJ 508. The FAA/SSP, Chandigarh disposed of the First Appeal vide order dated 18.06.2024 upholding the PIO's reply stating that the FIR & complaint are still under enquiry/investigation.
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next