RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Proactive/Suo Moto Disclosure
| S.No. | HIGH COURT CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 2987 and 3087 of 2015 And M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 1 of 2015 (97.20 KB) 
|
24 Feb, 2015 | Jose Dhanapaul Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu The petitioners sought copy of DVAC manual. The question was whether DVAC Manual, which is a non-statutory administrative guideline for conduct of investigation, is to be treated as information under RTI, whether it is to be exempted under sec 8. The Court directed the DVAC to upload the DVAC Manual in their website within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and update the same from time to time without any delay. |
| 2 |
CWP No. 22252 of 2012 (O&M) (115.84 KB)
|
08 Nov, 2012 | Board of School Education Haryana & Ors. Vs. State Information Commission & Anr. The State Information Commission, Haryana directed the respondent /CPIO to put on the ‘question paper’ and ‘answer key’ to questions of STET examination, 2011 on website of the public authority and send compliance report to it. The petitioners contended that there was no occasion for the Commission to have directed for uploading of the ‘question paper’ and ‘answer key’ on the website and further without there being any allegation that the petitioners refused to follow fair procedure for inspection of the record by any of the applicant under the RTI Act, The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it is only meant to avoid filing of applications by the candidates, which may be thousands in number. It will, in fact, reduce the work of the Public Authority as well for the reason that State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority are the employees working with the Public Authority only, High Court upheld the decisiion of CIC. |
| 3 |
W.P.(C) 3382/2012 (116.66 KB)
|
14 Jun, 2012 | PRESIDENT’S SECRETARIAT Vs NITISH KUMAR TRIPATHI Nine RTI applications had been moved by the respondent before the petitioner. Most of the information had been provided. However, information in relation to the donations made by the President from time to timer was not disclosed by invoking Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act i.e. by treating the information as personal information, the disclosure of which was stated to be not in the public interest. The Ld. CIC has, however, rejected the said defence of the petitioner, and has directed disclosure of the information. Hon'ble High Court held that,the donations made by the President of India cannot said to relate to personal information of the President. It cannot be said that the disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of, either the President of India, or the recipient of the W.P.(C.) No. 3382/2012 Page 6 of 7 donation. |
| 4 |
W.P.(C) 11271/2009 (296.44 KB)
|
01 Jun, 2012 | Registrar of Companies & Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr Once the information is brought into the public domain it is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act and, the right to access this category of information shall be on the basis of whether the public authority discloses it free, or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribe. The Act therefore vests in the public authority the power and the right to prescribe the mode of access to voluntarily disclose information i.e., either free or at a prescribe cost/price. |
Total Case uploaded: 4