Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)

Nathi Devi vs Radha Devi Gupta on 17 December, 2004

"A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption have to be construed in their terms; (See Nathi Devi v Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 v. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which his unwarranted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 285 - B P Singh - Full Document

People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003

He has gone on to quote Sec. 8(1) (d), 8(1) (j) and Sec 11 of the R.T.I. Act and has concluded that it is clear that the exemption clause cannot override the larger public interest. Besides, he states that the orders does not disclose in what way the commercial interest of IREL would be compromised by the information sought.. In this case he has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.U.C.L. vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 151 - P V Reddi - Full Document

B.R. Kapoor vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 21 September, 2001

"A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption have to be construed in their terms; (See Nathi Devi v Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 v. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which his unwarranted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 76 - Cited by 138 - Full Document
1