Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 382 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner And ... on 3 December, 2007

Mr. Rakesh K Gupta vs Directorate General Of Income Tax ... on 30 October, 2009

In Writ Petition WP( C) 3114/2007 in the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors., the Court had ruled, "13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
Central Information Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Milap Choraria vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 12 November, 2009

"That Delhi High court in Judgment dated 3rd December in Writ Petition (C ) No. 3114/07, in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., decided that even during the pendency of an Investigation, disclosure is mandated unless Public Authority show the reasonable grounds in writing that how disclosure may impede the investigation.
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. V B Tiwari And Co vs Central Vigilance Commssion on 14 May, 2010

However, because the decision not to disclose was in keeping with the UPSC policy, the CPIO has acted in good faith. There can, therefore, be no grounds for penalty. On the other hand the CVC will take note of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information 7 Commissioner" in W.P. No. 3114/2007 in which the process for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) has been clearly laid down and might be adhered to by the CVC whenever information is sought to be refused on grounds of exemption from disclosure.
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Central Vigilance Commission on 16 June, 2011

Herewith also refer decision of High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 311412007 Dated: 03'' December, 2007. Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors In another Hon'ble CIC decision in case file No: CICIWBIAI2009/000568 dated: 26-05-2009 Dr. Sudershan Kumar Vs. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Date of Decision: 12-08-2010. In this context the scope of exemption u/s. 8(1)(h) is limited to reasonable grounds being offered for availing of such an exemption, which has not been done in this case. In para 15 of the above order moreover, Honble S. Ravindra Bhat J specifically notes: "As held in the preceding part of the Judgment without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the matters collected till the notice were issued to the assesses, the respondents could not, even after overruling the objection, should not have imposed the condition that in formation could be disclosed only after recovery was made"
Central Information Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next