Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.41 seconds)Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Shri Arvind Kejriwal vs Department Of Personnel & Training And ... on 27 November, 2008
Shri Achar has no doubt submitted that the Commission's decision
in the case of Shri Arvind Kejariwal vs. Cabinet Secretariat and Anr. has
been stayed. However, a stay in making disclosure in that case cannot be
deemed a stay in disclosure in all cases, particularly in light of the ruling
above that "this necessarily has to be done on case-to-case basis taking
into consideration many factors having regard to the circumstances of
each case." This ruling also accepts the authority of the Central
information Commission in ruling upon this issue highlighted by us above,
stating that, like the courts, the Commission "can examine the
documents/information to decide the question of larger public interest."
We find however, that the decision challenged before us has failed to
examine the question of disclosure in the resent case from that point of
view, but in the hearing has simply sought to defend withholding the
19
information on a ruling that would, if applied universally, have the effect of
classifying certain categories of documents while, as is affirmed from the
highlighted portion of the ruling above, 'there is nothing sacrosanct about
the immunity, which is granted to documents because they belong to a
certain class.'
For these reasons, and in light of the fact that PIO cannot decide
this question and cannot pass an order under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act
holding, inter alia, that information is covered by the exemption clauses
under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act but public interest in disclosure
overweighs and justifies disclosure, the present appeal is remanded back
to Shri Rajeev Kumar, Jt. Secretary and Appellate Authority, Cabinet
Secretariat who will re-examine the response given to Q. Nos. 4 to 7 & 10
of the application of Shri Sudhir Awasthi in light of the above ruling
keeping in mind that any intent to protect government servants from
criticism, however unjustified as a reasoning for withholding any
information, can have little validity in a democratic society, which believes
in open government, and provide the disclosable answers in accordance
with records held by the Cabinet Secretariat in this regard, transferring the
questions with regard to the information not so held to the concerned
public authority for response. This exercise will be completed within ten
working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997
In R. v. Secretary of State for Home
Affairs, ex p Hosenball in the interest of national
security Lord Denning, M.R. did not permit disclosure
of the information furnished by the security service to
the Home Secretary holding it highly confidential. The
public interest in the security of the realm was held so
great that the sources of the information must not be
disclosed nor should the nature of information itself be
disclosed."
Article 356 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004
We may also notice that public interest litigation would
be maintainable only to remedy the public wrong,
6
injury and not for redressal of private or other disputes
not genuinely concerned with public interest and the
matters covered under the private field would hardly
be made subject matter of the public interest litigation.
Furthermore, in relation to service matters the
concept of public interest litigation cannot be
invoked. 3 The Supreme Court in the case of Dattaraj
Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2005)1 SCC 590.
Section 162 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 123 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1980
The Petitioner
also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri
& Ors. v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1981 SC 344 to
contend that the Petitioner has a deeper concern in
the matter and being a member of a social
organization/body, the present writ petition would be
maintainable. The Petitioner can hardly derive any
benefit as on facts, this case is of no help to the
Petitioner."