Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO was appropriate
in principle, however the CPIO erred in not quoting the applicable exemption of Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the
Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil
Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of
"personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified
in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara
Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs.
Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs.
Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO was appropriate
in principle, however the CPIO erred in not quoting the applicable exemption of Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the
Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil
Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of
"personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified
in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara
Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs.
Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs.
Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO was appropriate
in principle, however the CPIO erred in not quoting the applicable exemption of Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the
Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil
Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of
"personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified
in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara
Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs.
Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs.
Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Petitioner No. 6 For Placing On Record ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 December, 2020
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO was appropriate
in principle, however the CPIO erred in not quoting the applicable exemption of Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the
Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of
India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil
Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of
"personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified
in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara
Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs.
Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs.
Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
Bihar Public Service Commn vs Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr on 13 December, 2012
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs.
Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as
under:
S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. on 30 December, 1981
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any
public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the
individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring
from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and
public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person
Page 5 of 7
with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while
keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information
with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the
larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional
values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied
Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P.
Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has
been maintained that:
State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors on 26 October, 2005
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective,
'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the
public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which
their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied
And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat &
others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
1