Court Cases - Decided
These cases have been decided by courts.
The bank refused to release information about its employee transfer policy and files relating to transfers. The CIC ruled for disclosure and Kerala High Court upheld CIC decision.
The school argued in Madras High Court that the school is a private institution and is not subject to RTI. The court dismissed the case and ruled that the school is subject to RTI since it gets substantial support from the government.
CIC ruled that UPSC must release the marks obtained by examinees, the method used to score the grades, the cut-off level for passing the examination, and sample answers of the questions. UPSC appealed to the Delhi High Court. The court upheld the CIC ruling. However UPSC appealed to division bench of the court. The division bench is scheduled to rule on the case. (CW-1770-2007)
Case was filed because Yoga’s petition to CIC was dismissed without giving Yoga a hearing. The Delhi High Court ruled that CIC shall give petitioners a hearing. June 2007 regulations promulgated by CIC, say that all of the petitioners will have a hearing. So it appears that CIC has listened to the Delhi High Court.
The Council claimed that it is not covered under RTI, since only a part of its budget was from government and this grant was for specific projects. CIC ruled against the Council and Delhi High Court affirmed the ruling.
He asked information, under RTI, from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) about a breach of contract dispute. He failed to get information from PIO and the Appellate Authority. He appealed to CIC. However, CIC ignored the violations of RTI Act by BPCL and dismissed petitioner’s appeal. Aggrieved with this order, the manner in which it was passed and the failure of CIC to impose a penalty on CPIO, he approached High Court for relief.(CW-2487-2007)
The Delhi High Court Dismissed the case.
Arvind requested copies of files dealing with selection and posting of officers by Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT). The request was refused. Arvind appealed to CIC and CIC ruled that DOPT had to show the files to Arvind. DOPT showed the files but refused to give him copies of the files. Arvind appealed to CIC but CIC refused to intervene. Arvind filed writ to force DOPT to give copies of the files.
The Delhi High Court agreed with Arvind and remanded case to CIC to rehear the case.
Third party information was release by PIO without giving notice to the third party. Gujarat SIC upheld the actions of PIO. The Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of rights of third parties, for notice, hearing and appeal.
He filed a RTI application to the Delhi Commissioner of Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) asking what they have done pursuant to High Court’s order. There was no proper response from either of the offices. He approached CIC. CIC acknowledged that he should have been given information and imposed penalty. However, later that penalty was removed and Complaint of petitioner was summarily dismissed. Hence he filed case before High Court. (CW-3464-2007)
The Delhi High Court dismissed the case.
JK Gupta asked PA for files on salary and compensation. The request was ignored. CIC ordered the files released and imposed a fine of Rs 20.000/ on the PA. The PA responded to CIC, saying that JK Gupta was Disbursement Officer of the PA and therefore should have the files anyway. (Gupta contends he is NOT the Disbursement Officer and has no access to files). CIC agreed with PA and reversed the fine. Gupta filed writ claiming CIC was wrong in accepting PA’s arguments. The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of J K Gupta and remanded the case to CIC for further proceedings.
Requestor asked for documents from Director of Geology about a lease granted to V V Minerals. The PIO refused the request but the AA ordered the documents released. In response VV Mineral appealed to Madras High Court. The Court dismissed the appeal on all counts and ordered release of the documents.
Singh asked Income Tax Department, under RTI, for files concerning an investigation into possible tax evasion by his estranged wife. Tax Dept. refused claiming exemption for records under investigation. CIC asked Tax Dept. to release the records once investigation was complete. Delh High Court ruled against CIC, saying exemption 8 section (h) should be construed narrowly and that the section does not say that the investigation has to complete before records can be released. The court ordered release of records.