Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.88 seconds)

The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal And Ors. on 19 December, 2014

3. The application on the above said point was transferred to CPIO under Section 6(3) of the Act. By an order dated 02.02.2011, CPIO rejected the said application on the ground that the information as sought for by the respondent is personal information and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, SCI & Anr. v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal: Civil Appeal No.10044/2010, decided on 26.11.2010, there is a stay on the disclosure of the information relating to the judges. The respondent preferred an appeal (No.47/2011) before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter 'FAA') challenging the order dated 02.02.2011. By an order dated 07.03.2011, FAA dismissed the appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Mr. Abhishek Gupta vs Supreme Court Of India on 27 July, 2011

Transferred to Mr. S.K.Shrivastava PIO, Ministry of Law & Justice under Section 6 (3) under intimation to the appellant with the following note addressed to the appellant: (You are requested to contact the above authority for further information in the matter. Further, the information sought by you is confidential and is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and you have no right to access the said information under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, as the information is not held by or under the control of the CPIO. Supreme Court of India, your request cannot be acceded to under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further informed that in SLP (Civil) No.32855 of 2009 titled Central Public information Officer & Anr, Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Record of Proceeding dated 4.12.2009 has stayed the directions of the Central Information Commission for disclosing the information relating to appointment of Hon'ble Judges and the said matter is still pending.) Grounds for First appeal:
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jiwan Kumar Garg vs Supreme Court Of India on 28 October, 2016

9. The respondent referred to appellant's RTI application dated 7.7.2015 and stated that the issue of providing information relating to appointment/transfer of Hon'ble Judges as also complaints received against them including supply of copies of confidential correspondence, is the subject matter of judicial proceedings in SLP Nos. 328555-56 of 2009, now converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 10044-45 of 2010 which are now sub-judice before Hon'be Supreme Court. Further, in terms of order dated 4.12.2009 in SLP(C) No. 32855-56 titled "Central Public Information Officer & Anr. V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal" there is a stay on disclosure of information relating to matters like the present one.
Central Information Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anuradha Mishra vs Supreme Court Of India on 24 October, 2019

4. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 05.05.2017 that the issue of providing information relating to appointment of Hon'ble Judges is the subject matter of judicial proceedings in SLP Nos. 32855-56 of 2009 now converted into Civil Appeal No. 10044-45 of 2010 which are now sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Further, in terms of order dated 04.12.2009 in SLP (C) no. 32855/2009 titled "Central Public Information Officer & Anr. versus Subhash Chandra Agrawal" there is a stay of disclosure of information relating to matters like the present one. Hence disclosure of information in this regard may constitute contempt of court. Therefore, the information in the nature sought by the appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next