Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (3.81 seconds)
Documents citing Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2019

Bhavin Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Revp/130/2019 ... on 5 August, 2019

In the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the State Information Commission, henceforth, the State Government has to follow the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anjali Bhardwaj and others v. Union of India and others (2019 SCC OnLine SC 205) regarding issuance of advertisement and placing all the information into the official website.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh Chawla And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 May, 2022

1147 BHARDWAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA & 1226598 ANR 01.11.2016 TO 31.10.2021 5058/2019 LOKESH SAINI 1148 LOKESH SAINI -6811542 VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 01.11.2016 TO 31.10.2021 5059/2019 KUNAL BINDAL VS. 1149 KUNAL BINDAL -1807146 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 01.11.2016 TO 31.10.2021 5060/2019 SHILPA JINDAL 1150 SHILPA JINDAL -243980 VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 01.11.2015 TO 31.10.2020 5061/2019 ROHIT PAHUJA VS. 1151 ROHIT PAHUJA -3644839 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 01.11.2016 TO 31.10.2021 5062/2019 RAJ KUMAR AND ANR. RAJ KUMAR 1152 VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR -1644129 01.11.2016 TO 31.10.2021 5062/2019 RAJ KUMAR AND ANR.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 606 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Sri. A. Ramachandra Rao vs The Secretary To Government on 3 September, 2019

Thus, before the judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ, supra, the recommendations were already made. The guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the aforesaid guidelines do not apply retrospectively as the Supreme Court has not interpreted any statutory provision. Therefore, the aforesaid guidelines could not apply to the selection in question.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

Sh. Shafiq Ahmed vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2020

Sh. Ram Avtar, Patwari, from the office of SDM Civil Lines who has produced original Aks­Sijra/Ex.PW5/1, is examined as PW5, Sh. Dipender Gahlaut, JJA is examined as PW6 who has produced original summoned record of case titled Pankaj LAC NO.11/18 Shafiq Ahmed Vs. UOI & Ors. Page 6 Of 34 Bhardwaj Vs. UOI and containing with record of RTI reply dated 06.09.2012/Ex.PW6/1, 05.10.2012/Ex.PW6/2 and 17.09.2012/ Ex.PW6/3 which be read accordingly in evidence of PW­6. The judgment is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.). The evidence of petitioner is closed vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for petitioner on 14.03.2019. The evidence on behalf of Union of India/respondent no.1 was tendered by ld. Counsel Sh. S.K. Puri as RW1. Respondent no.2/North DMC has got examined the sole witness Sh. Brahmanand Perai, Assistant Commissioner in Land & Estate Deptt. as RW2 and the evidence of respondent was closed on 12.09.2019. Final arguments are submitted by both the parties.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Suri vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2021

“39. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”) recognises the right of the citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authority, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. …” 309 (2013) 15 SCC 732 169 In Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.310, this Court recognised that right to information was traceable from Article 19(1)(a) even before the 2005 Act came into force and observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 281 - Cited by 6 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Anjali Bhardwaj vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 15 February, 2021

3. The complainant raised the issue of Amendment Bill 2018 which was related to terms and conditions of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners in the Supreme Court during the hearings in WP No.436 of 2018 Anjali Bhardwaj Vs Union of India. The Supreme Court in its Judgement on 15.02.2019 in the case issued general directions (refers para 67(ii)) which provides that "Insofar as terms and conditions of appointment are concerned, no doubt, Section 13(5) of RTI Act states that the CIC and ICs shall be appointed on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the Chief Election Commissioner/Election Commissioner. At the same time, it would be also be appropriate if the said terms and conditions on which such appointments are to be made are specifically stipulated in the advertisement and put-on websites as well."
Central Information Commission Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next