Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.54 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023
The Delhi Prevention Of Defacement Of Property Act, 2007
M/S Pravin Kumar Kotak vs State Of Chhattisgarh 14 Wpt/167/2018 ... on 10 October, 2018
30. Hence, the Commission deems it expedient, as per Section 25(5) of the
RTI Act, 2005, for recommending the Respondent Public Authority giving effect
to the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act as recently directed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case titled Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WRIT PETITION
(CIVIL) No. 990 of 2021 for facilitating the requisite information regarding
constitution of averred Committee and its related information through
website. This step will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI
Applications.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
(iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a leading case of Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner held that personal
information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
public interest, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017
Similarly, in
Canara Bank Vs. In C.S. Shyam, it was held that personal information cannot
be disclosed unless a larger public interest justifies it. The Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Naresh Trehan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta also held that personal
information, including medical records, cannot be disclosed in the absence of
an overriding public interest.
Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 24 November, 2014
Similarly, in
Canara Bank Vs. In C.S. Shyam, it was held that personal information cannot
be disclosed unless a larger public interest justifies it. The Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in Naresh Trehan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta also held that personal
information, including medical records, cannot be disclosed in the absence of
an overriding public interest.
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs Cpio (Is-I) (Is-Iv Desk) Ministry Of ... on 18 April, 2023
8. That this Hon'ble Commission itself has given paramount consideration to the right
to privacy in the matter of Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Second Appeal No. CIC/MHO/A/2018/107018, decided on 29.11.2019 by a
Full Bench comprising Hon'ble CIC Shri Sudhir Bhargava, Hon'ble IC Shri Bimal Julka,
and Hon'ble IC Shri Suresh Chandra. In that matter, the Full Bench expressly held that
the Right to Privacy is a facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that for any disclosure overriding such right,
three conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be a legal object; (ii) there must be a
legal framework; and (iii) there must be a nexus between the objective to be achieved
and the privacy to be compromised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. A copy of
the said order is placed on record as Annexure-D.