This document is a court order from the High Court of Madras regarding a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission challenging an order from the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The TNPSC did not want to provide certain caste-wise information on selected candidates that was requested under the Right to Information Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Information Commission. The court found that disclosing caste-wise details of selected candidates would benefit people in verifying reservation quotas and that the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency in government workings.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
Foundation for ind journ crlp(a) 9053 2021sabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case between the Foundation for Independent Journalism (petitioner) and the State of U.P. and others (respondents). The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them and for a direction not to harass/arrest them based on the FIR. The court granted the state 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit and the petitioner 1 week to file a rejoinder affidavit. The next hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2021 and no coercive action was allowed against the petitioner until then based on interim protection from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition regarding Sidhique Kappan, a prisoner, who requested interim bail to visit his mother in Kerala who was critically ill. While the Court recognized the urgency of allowing Kappan to visit his mother, concerns were raised that he may use the opportunity to garner public support for his activities against the law. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail for 5 days with strict conditions, including being escorted by Uttar Pradesh police at all times, not giving interviews or meeting the public, and only interacting with relatives and doctors regarding his mother's health. The order was passed without prejudice to the main petition challenges.
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
Foundation for ind journ crlp(a) 9053 2021sabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case between the Foundation for Independent Journalism (petitioner) and the State of U.P. and others (respondents). The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them and for a direction not to harass/arrest them based on the FIR. The court granted the state 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit and the petitioner 1 week to file a rejoinder affidavit. The next hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2021 and no coercive action was allowed against the petitioner until then based on interim protection from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
1. The petitioner challenged an FIR filed against her regarding Facebook posts alleging violations of lockdown restrictions in certain areas of West Bengal.
2. The Calcutta High Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer if summoned under Section 41A of the CrPC.
3. The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the high court's order and allowed the investigating officer to question the petitioner via video conferencing, with 24 hours notice. The petitioner was also willing to cooperate and respond to queries.
Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a curative petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India by Om Prakash against an order of the court dated October 21, 2016 in a previous writ petition. The curative petition seeks to set aside the previous order on grounds of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The filing index lists the documents being submitted in support of the curative petition, including affidavits, court orders being challenged, photographs, petitions submitted to the Chief Justice of India, and an application seeking cancellation of process and quashing of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
This order denies a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner, a political leader, was charged for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for remarks made during a political event. While the petitioner argued the remarks were not intended to disrespect judges or members of scheduled castes, the court found the remarks prima facie showed he remarked that people outside of Tamil Nadu are idiots and no one from scheduled castes had become a high court judge in another state until certain political leaders intervened. The court held it is not justified to embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at this stage, and the petitioner must face trial based
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
Aadhaar is NOT mandatory for marriage certificates Newslaundry
The Central Information Commission heard two appeals regarding the requirement of Aadhar cards for registering marriages in Delhi. The Commission noted the Supreme Court ruling that Aadhar is not mandatory for availing government services. It directed the public authority to publicize that Aadhar is not required for marriage registration and to make the necessary changes to allow alternate IDs for online registration under the Special Marriage Act. The Commission also directed the authority to provide information to the appellant on actions taken regarding the appointment of additional marriage officers within 21 days.
This document provides a 3-page summary of a bail application hearing in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
[1] The petitioner, Aman Sagotra, is seeking bail in an FIR registered under Section 376 IPC (rape) against him. He claims the sexual relationship was consensual as the prosecutrix willingly entered into it.
[2] However, the prosecutrix alleges the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with her against her will while she was a minor, and raped her on 22.10.2019 by threatening her.
[3] Considering the factors governing bail under law, the Court finds a prima facie case of rape against the petitioner. It
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
The document summarizes four writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding charges of rape against a husband.
1. The petitions challenge the constitutionality of sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden of proof on the accused, as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
2. One petition was filed by the accused husband seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him for offenses including rape of his wife under section 376 of the IPC.
3. The lawyers for the accused argued that the presumptions under the POCSO Act are unconstitutional and that the original FIR did not mention offenses under section 376 of the IPC.
4
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a case regarding a petition challenging an order of detention under the National Security Act. The key details are:
- The petitioner was detained under the NSA based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases.
- The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked sufficient details and relied on stale cases.
- The court analyzed previous judgments which established that a detention order must demonstrate a likelihood of prejudicial acts and threat to public order, not just criminal behavior.
- The court ultimately set aside the detention order, finding it did not sufficiently demonstrate how the petitioner threatened public order or that normal law was insufficient to address the situation.
The document discusses a case where an individual filed a Right to Information request seeking details of medical expenses for judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Central Information Commission had directed that these medical expense records be maintained separately for each judge. However, the court set aside this order, finding that medical records are exempt from disclosure and there was no valid public interest in disclosing individual judges' medical reimbursement details.
got this in my folder, if you have objection of me posting it here, please inform and i will remove it immediately,
great presentation on rti act 2005,
1. The petitioner challenged an FIR filed against her regarding Facebook posts alleging violations of lockdown restrictions in certain areas of West Bengal.
2. The Calcutta High Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer if summoned under Section 41A of the CrPC.
3. The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the high court's order and allowed the investigating officer to question the petitioner via video conferencing, with 24 hours notice. The petitioner was also willing to cooperate and respond to queries.
Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a curative petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India by Om Prakash against an order of the court dated October 21, 2016 in a previous writ petition. The curative petition seeks to set aside the previous order on grounds of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The filing index lists the documents being submitted in support of the curative petition, including affidavits, court orders being challenged, photographs, petitions submitted to the Chief Justice of India, and an application seeking cancellation of process and quashing of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
This document is a court judgment regarding a request made under the Right to Information Act for details of corrupt police officers in Kerala. The State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of information regarding officers convicted of corruption or human rights violations, or against whom a final police report was submitted to court. However, details of officers under ongoing investigation were not to be disclosed. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing the State Crime Records Bureau is exempt from RTI requests. The court heard arguments from both sides and the judgment discusses the issues around applying exemptions for ongoing investigations versus ordering disclosure of certain established misconduct details.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
This order denies a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner, a political leader, was charged for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for remarks made during a political event. While the petitioner argued the remarks were not intended to disrespect judges or members of scheduled castes, the court found the remarks prima facie showed he remarked that people outside of Tamil Nadu are idiots and no one from scheduled castes had become a high court judge in another state until certain political leaders intervened. The court held it is not justified to embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at this stage, and the petitioner must face trial based
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
Aadhaar is NOT mandatory for marriage certificates Newslaundry
The Central Information Commission heard two appeals regarding the requirement of Aadhar cards for registering marriages in Delhi. The Commission noted the Supreme Court ruling that Aadhar is not mandatory for availing government services. It directed the public authority to publicize that Aadhar is not required for marriage registration and to make the necessary changes to allow alternate IDs for online registration under the Special Marriage Act. The Commission also directed the authority to provide information to the appellant on actions taken regarding the appointment of additional marriage officers within 21 days.
This document provides a 3-page summary of a bail application hearing in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
[1] The petitioner, Aman Sagotra, is seeking bail in an FIR registered under Section 376 IPC (rape) against him. He claims the sexual relationship was consensual as the prosecutrix willingly entered into it.
[2] However, the prosecutrix alleges the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with her against her will while she was a minor, and raped her on 22.10.2019 by threatening her.
[3] Considering the factors governing bail under law, the Court finds a prima facie case of rape against the petitioner. It
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
The document summarizes four writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding charges of rape against a husband.
1. The petitions challenge the constitutionality of sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden of proof on the accused, as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
2. One petition was filed by the accused husband seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him for offenses including rape of his wife under section 376 of the IPC.
3. The lawyers for the accused argued that the presumptions under the POCSO Act are unconstitutional and that the original FIR did not mention offenses under section 376 of the IPC.
4
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a case regarding a petition challenging an order of detention under the National Security Act. The key details are:
- The petitioner was detained under the NSA based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases.
- The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked sufficient details and relied on stale cases.
- The court analyzed previous judgments which established that a detention order must demonstrate a likelihood of prejudicial acts and threat to public order, not just criminal behavior.
- The court ultimately set aside the detention order, finding it did not sufficiently demonstrate how the petitioner threatened public order or that normal law was insufficient to address the situation.
The document discusses a case where an individual filed a Right to Information request seeking details of medical expenses for judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Central Information Commission had directed that these medical expense records be maintained separately for each judge. However, the court set aside this order, finding that medical records are exempt from disclosure and there was no valid public interest in disclosing individual judges' medical reimbursement details.
got this in my folder, if you have objection of me posting it here, please inform and i will remove it immediately,
great presentation on rti act 2005,
This judgment involves a petition filed by Swati Rajiv Goswami seeking publication of rules framed by the police under Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 as well as publication and online access to all rules, regulations, instructions, manuals, and records used by the police. The petitioner's request for permission to hold a peaceful protest was denied by the police. When the petitioner sought information about the rules under which the request was processed, the information was refused. The court examines whether the petitioner has a right to know the rules under which police regulate public assemblies and processions.
The Chief Justice heard arguments from the State regarding a public interest litigation concerning banners placed in Lucknow with personal details of over 50 individuals accused of vandalism.
The State argued the Court did not have jurisdiction and the banners served the public interest of deterring unlawful behavior. However, the Court found no law permitted disclosing personal details and this violated privacy rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
While the State can maintain law and order, it cannot violate fundamental rights. The banners interfered with privacy without statutory backing. Privacy is a fundamental right in India, recognized globally and integral to human dignity. Therefore, the Court ruled the banners must be removed.
Information in income-tax returns cannot be accessed through R.T.I. Act excep...D Murali ☆
Information in income-tax returns cannot be accessed through R.T.I. Act except on ground of larger public interest - T. N. Pandey - Article published in Business Advisor, dated October 25, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
1) The petitioner sought permission to hold a public meeting to protest recent amendments to India's citizenship laws, but permission was denied by police citing potential traffic issues and law and order problems.
2) The court noted that blanket suppression of dissent is against principles of democracy and ruled the police denial was without proper jurisdiction.
3) However, due to a current government ban on public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court could not direct the meeting be allowed, but ruled the police must permit it after the ban is lifted.
1. The investigating agency (CBI) filed an application seeking direction from the court for the accused to provide the password of the computer system and Tally software seized during investigation.
2. The CBI argued they have the right to seek this information as part of a fair investigation, while the accused argued it would violate their right against self-incrimination.
3. The court examined the historical background of the right against self-incrimination and the investigating agency's powers, based on previous Supreme Court rulings. It acknowledged the need to balance individual rights and fair investigation.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India regarding an order from the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the Registrar to provide information on cases pending before the Supreme Court where judgments were reserved during 2007-2009. The High Court overturned the CIC's order and the order of the single judge upholding it. The Court found that under the Right to Information Act, a public authority is only required to provide information that is already available with it, and cannot be compelled to collate information in a particular form if it is not maintained that way. As the Supreme Court did not maintain the requested data in the form sought, the direction to provide that information was
Second Appeal against Registrar CIC dated 24.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a second appeal made to the Central Information Commission in India regarding a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2005. The index lists 7 items, including the second appeal application dated February 16, 2017, responses from the First Appellate Authority and Central Public Information Officer, the original RTI request, and communications with the CIC and Prime Minister's Office from November 30, 2016 to January 4, 2017. The appellant argues that the CPIO and FAA did not satisfactorily provide the requested information regarding provisions for life and liberty under the RTI Act and contradictory replies from the CIC. The appellant requests true information be provided in accordance with the RTI Act and Rules.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking disclosure of certain information about a third party respondent under the Right to Information Act. In a 3-sentence summary:
The Court held that details of memos, notices, and penalties issued to an employee, as well as their assets, property, and tax information, qualify as "personal information" exempt from disclosure under the Act. While larger public interests could warrant disclosure, the petitioner failed to establish this. The dismissal upheld the view that disclosure of such employment and financial details would invade privacy and bear no relationship to public activities.
The applicants, who are Dalit-Bahujan-Adivasi activists and journalists, have filed this intervention application in the ongoing public interest litigation regarding the Hathras gang rape and murder case. They seek to provide insights on caste-based atrocities against Dalits, especially Dalit women, and barriers they face in accessing justice. The application notes that Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of cases under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act but has failed to properly implement the Act, such as identifying atrocity-prone areas or formulating contingency plans as required. It aims to highlight the systemic discrimination and lack of protection faced by Dalits in Uttar Pradesh.
This document is a Supreme Court of India order regarding a Right to Information (RTI) request. It summarizes the petitioner's RTI request seeking various personal and employment details of a third party respondent. The Central Information Commission and courts below denied most of the information, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for "personal information." The Supreme Court examines the scope and interpretation of Sections 8(1)(e), (g), and (j) exemptions, to determine if the denied information should have been provided.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding a writ petition filed by the Indian Social Action Forum challenging certain provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court discusses the arguments made by both parties regarding whether the challenged provisions relating to declaring organizations as being of a political nature violate constitutional rights. It also discusses the statutory framework and objectives of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.
Here is the full text of the judgement on 66 a of IT actBhimashankar Sanga
The Supreme Court of India judgement addresses the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which punishes people for sending offensive or annoying electronic communications. The petitioners argued that Section 66A infringes the fundamental right to free speech and is not a reasonable restriction allowed under the Constitution. The government defended the law as necessary to address new forms of cybercrime. The Court discussed the importance of free speech in Indian democracy and previous judgements affirming this right. It would determine whether Section 66A places unreasonable restrictions on free speech.
The court document discusses a case regarding a political party in Puducherry that allegedly conducted an unauthorized campaign by sending bulk SMS messages to citizens' phones linked to their Aadhar cards without permission from the Election Commission. The court notes serious privacy concerns and orders the Election Commission and UIDAI to investigate how the political party accessed personal citizen information. The court will hear the case again in 6 weeks to receive answers from the respondent authorities regarding compliance with election rules and protection of citizen privacy.
This document contains an application for impleadment/intervention in suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of India against Prashant Bhushan for tweets criticizing the judiciary. The applicants argue that the contempt proceedings violate the fundamental right to free speech and expression and aim to stifle fair criticism of the judiciary. They seek to intervene in the case to assist the court on questions of law and fact regarding the right to free speech versus contempt of court. Annexures include details of the contempt case and articles supporting free criticism of public institutions.
The document discusses the Right to Information Act 2005 and the Official Secrets Act 1923 in India. It provides background on the need for the RTI Act, including promoting transparency and accountability. It outlines important sections of the RTI Act regarding access to information, designation of information officers, appeals process and penalties. It also discusses the Central Information Commission and landmark cases related to RTI. The document then provides history and aspects covered under the Official Secrets Act 1923, including espionage and secret information. It notes tensions between the RTI Act and OSA, as well as committees recommending changes to the latter. Finally, it outlines some cases where the OSA was invoked against journalists.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
1) The petitioner, a transgender person, filed a writ petition seeking directions for separate job vacancies and relaxations in qualifications and age for transgender persons in teaching jobs in Delhi schools.
2) The court noted that the online application portal had been amended to include transgender as an option but the petitioner argued this was not sufficient without separate vacancies.
3) The Department of Social Welfare had recommended 5 years age relaxation and 5% relaxation in qualifying marks for transgender persons for 10 years to promote their employment.
4) The court directed the respondent authorities to clarify their positions and impleaded the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on framing rules for transgender rights. It allowed the petitioner to apply for existing vacancies through
The document is an open letter to Indian citizens opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR), and National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) on constitutional and practical grounds. It makes the following key points:
1) The NPR and NRIC are unnecessary exercises that will cause hardship and financial burden without addressing any major issue. Data collected is already available through Aadhaar.
2) The CAA is morally and constitutionally problematic as it discriminates based on religion and excludes Muslims. It has stoked fears, especially among Muslims.
3) The government's conflicting statements and plans for widespread foreign tribunals and detention camps have further caused confusion and apprehen
About Potato, The scientific name of the plant is Solanum tuberosum (L).Christina Parmionova
The potato is a starchy root vegetable native to the Americas that is consumed as a staple food in many parts of the world. Potatoes are tubers of the plant Solanum tuberosum, a perennial in the nightshade family Solanaceae. Wild potato species can be found from the southern United States to southern Chile
Synopsis (short abstract) In December 2023, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 30 May as the International Day of Potato.
Food safety, prepare for the unexpected - So what can be done in order to be ready to address food safety, food Consumers, food producers and manufacturers, food transporters, food businesses, food retailers can ...
United Nations World Oceans Day 2024; June 8th " Awaken new dephts".Christina Parmionova
The program will expand our perspectives and appreciation for our blue planet, build new foundations for our relationship to the ocean, and ignite a wave of action toward necessary change.
Working with data is a challenge for many organizations. Nonprofits in particular may need to collect and analyze sensitive, incomplete, and/or biased historical data about people. In this talk, Dr. Cori Faklaris of UNC Charlotte provides an overview of current AI capabilities and weaknesses to consider when integrating current AI technologies into the data workflow. The talk is organized around three takeaways: (1) For better or sometimes worse, AI provides you with “infinite interns.” (2) Give people permission & guardrails to learn what works with these “interns” and what doesn’t. (3) Create a roadmap for adding in more AI to assist nonprofit work, along with strategies for bias mitigation.
This report explores the significance of border towns and spaces for strengthening responses to young people on the move. In particular it explores the linkages of young people to local service centres with the aim of further developing service, protection, and support strategies for migrant children in border areas across the region. The report is based on a small-scale fieldwork study in the border towns of Chipata and Katete in Zambia conducted in July 2023. Border towns and spaces provide a rich source of information about issues related to the informal or irregular movement of young people across borders, including smuggling and trafficking. They can help build a picture of the nature and scope of the type of movement young migrants undertake and also the forms of protection available to them. Border towns and spaces also provide a lens through which we can better understand the vulnerabilities of young people on the move and, critically, the strategies they use to navigate challenges and access support.
The findings in this report highlight some of the key factors shaping the experiences and vulnerabilities of young people on the move – particularly their proximity to border spaces and how this affects the risks that they face. The report describes strategies that young people on the move employ to remain below the radar of visibility to state and non-state actors due to fear of arrest, detention, and deportation while also trying to keep themselves safe and access support in border towns. These strategies of (in)visibility provide a way to protect themselves yet at the same time also heighten some of the risks young people face as their vulnerabilities are not always recognised by those who could offer support.
In this report we show that the realities and challenges of life and migration in this region and in Zambia need to be better understood for support to be strengthened and tuned to meet the specific needs of young people on the move. This includes understanding the role of state and non-state stakeholders, the impact of laws and policies and, critically, the experiences of the young people themselves. We provide recommendations for immediate action, recommendations for programming to support young people on the move in the two towns that would reduce risk for young people in this area, and recommendations for longer term policy advocacy.
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance CenterThis Is Reno
Property appraisals completed in May for downtown Reno’s Community Assistance and Triage Centers (CAC) reveal that repairing the buildings to bring them back into service would cost an estimated $10.1 million—nearly four times the amount previously reported by city staff.
Preliminary findings _OECD field visits to ten regions in the TSI EU mining r...OECDregions
Preliminary findings from OECD field visits for the project: Enhancing EU Mining Regional Ecosystems to Support the Green Transition and Secure Mineral Raw Materials Supply.
1. 1/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
16.07.2020 07.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
and M.P.No.1 of 2010
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by its Secretary,
Greams Road,
Chennai-600 006..................................................................................Petitioner
-vs-
Mr.P.Muthian
Deputy Collector (Retired)
No.3, Sri Ram Nagar,
Kallanai Road,
Thiruvanaikaval,
Trichirappalli-620 005 .........................................................................Respondent
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 made
in Case No.6109/Enquiry/2009 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and to
quash the same as void, unlawful, unjust and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner : Dr.M.Devendran, Senior Counsel
For Respondent : No Appearance
(Name Printed)
*****
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the respondent passed in
Case No.6109/Enquiry/2009 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated
20.11.2009, by which the information sought for by the respondent herein was directed to
be supplied free of cost within three weeks.
2. 2/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
2. It was the case of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
to as the 'TNPSC'), represented by its Secretary that TNPSC is a Constitutional Body, created
under Article 315 of the Constitution of India to carry out several functions and duties
enumerated under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. The main duty of TNPSC is to
conduct examinations and make selections to the services of the State in addition to the
allied functions of extension of consultation in respect of disciplinary matters, recruitment
methods, etc.
2.1. It was the further case of TNPSC that the respondent herein addressed a letter
dated 06.10.2008 to Public Information Officer, Chennai seeking for the following
information:
a) Total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
b) Number of seats allocated to the Backward Community out of the
total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
c) Number of seats allocated to the Most Backward Community out of
the total number of vacancies called for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008;
d) Out of seats allocated to the Backward Community, the list of the
selected candidates from the sub-castes of Muthuraja and Muthriyar;
e) Out of seat allocated to the Most Backward Community, the list of
selected candidates from the sub-castes Ambalakarar;
f) Out of seat allocated to the Most Backward Community, the list of
selected candidates from Vanniya Kula Shatriar sub-castes (Vanniyar, Vanniya,
Vanniya Gounder, Kandar, Padayachi Palli and Agni Kular Shathriar)."
2.2. It was also the case of TNPSC that though the details sought for in respect of a
to c were furnished to the respondent, it was replied that other queries are exempted
3. 3/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
under Section 8 (1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act'). Aggrieved by
the said reply, the respondent approached the Second Appellate Authority, namely, Tamil
Nadu Information Commission (in short 'TNIC') and the said TNIC called for the Public
Information Officer for enquiry and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated
20.11.2009, which is unjust, illegal, improper and an arbitrary exercise of power.
2.3. It was submitted by TNPSC that it, being a Constitutional Functionary, has moral
obligation to maintain confidentiality and in the event of furnishing of the details to the
respondent, it would harm the interest of third parties and the details regarding caste-wise
breakup of the selected candidates got nothing to do with the public activity and such
disclosure would amount to invasion of the privacy of individuals, apart from creation of
communal discontent and strife. It was stated that the State has stopped the sporting of
the caste behind the names of persons and at the time of publication of result, TNPSC used
to indicate only the Class of candidates and not otherwise. Therefore, the direction to
furnish such details, issued by TNIC is highly unsustainable and untenable.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner-TNPSC. There is no
representation for the respondent, despite his name being printed in the cause list.
4. The contention of TNPSC that the details sought for by the respondent are not at
all warranted and that it would amount to invasion of privacy, cannot be accepted,
especially when the selection itself is based on caste wise quota. The disclosure of caste
4. 4/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
wise breakup will certainly inure to the benefit of candidates to ascertain as to whether
they actually fall under the reservation quota or not. When the general list itself has
already been published for public view, as stated in the petition, there is nothing wrong in
disclosing the details to the respondent. In the list, the details of caste, including sub-caste
have to be necessarily mentioned and the contention that such revelation would create
communal disharmony is not acceptable. As long as there is a provision for appointment on
the basis of reservation, what prevents the authorities in unearthing those details to the
public and when the details sought for by the respondent are furnished, it will throw a
clear light / picture as to under what category, a candidate was placed.
5. The apprehension of TNPSC, that in-depth description of castes will create
communal unrest, is only an illusion and imaginary and if it is the real concern of TNPSC
and the Government, they should think of abolishing the quota system as well as removal of
column regarding caste particulars in the school certificate itself, so that the people of
Tamil Nadu could stand united under one roof irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc. at
least in the year 2050 and our State will be a model State for the whole of the country.
6. The next plea raised by the learned Senior Counsel for TNPSC that the queries in
respect of (d to f) have been rejected only in terms of Section 8 (1)(d) of RTI Act, is wholly
unjustified on the ground that the purpose of enactment of RTI Act itself is to ensure
transparency in all respects. Moreover, a reading of the said section shows that it relates to
commercial confidence, trade secretes, etc., and it does not strictly prohibit the authority
5. 5/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
concerned from providing such details, as divulging of caste details will surely be beneficial
to candidates to doubly ascertain either about their induction or rejection and as such, the
quoting of the aforesaid provision is highly irrelevant to the present context, from which, it
is apparent that TNPSC had first decided not to give details and thereafter, searched for
relevant provisions. For better understanding, Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act is extracted
hereunder:
"(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Second Appellate Authority has rightly
passed the order, holding that every citizen is entitled to transparent view of the
functioning of public authorities and the trepidation shown by the Public Authority with
regard to the demand of such details by others will not be a ground in denying details to
public in contra to the provisions of the RTI Act. This may be one of the rarest of rare cases
where the Second Appellate Authority has boldly taken a decision, which does not warrant
any interference by this Court, as there is no error apparent on the face of record.
8. The birth of the RTI Act emanated from the suggestions given by Parliamentary
Standing Committee, on the basis of which, Home Affairs called for a report of Pranab Nath
Mukherjee Committee and also 179th Law Commission report and the constitutional
guarantee vis-a-vis Supreme Court observations and thereafter, the Parliament in its
wisdom enacted the Act, called Right to Information Act, 2005. On a close scrutiny of the
Preamble and the object of the Act, it is manifestly obvious that the scope of freedom of
6. 6/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
information has been widely spread with the object and purpose to give right to
information to its citizens in order to ensure transparency in Government dealings. From
bare reading of Section 6 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that any person, who desires to
obtain information under the Act shall have to make a request in writing to the authority
prescribed under the Act. It is not necessary that a person seeking information is a citizen
of the country or has a direct interest in the matter. As a matter of fact, the provision of
Section 6 confers right to information to any person for the obvious reason that right to
information flows from the right to expression.
9. The Apex Court, in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and
Others, reported in AIR 1975 SC 65 vividly discussed about the power of the Court to
direct production of document and under what circumstances, a privilege can be claimed
as contained under contemplated under Section 123 and 162 of the Evidence Act. While
discussing the issue, it was specifically held that the people of this country have a right to
know every public act, every thing that is done in a public way by their public
functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its
hearing. The Superior Court in the very same judgment further observed as follows:
"... In a Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of
the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets.
The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything
that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to
know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to
know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not
7. 7/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
absolute, is a factor, which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for
transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. To
cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business is not in the interest
of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately desired. It is generally
desired for the purpose of parties and polities or personal self-interest of
bureaucratic routine."
Even the Supreme Court clearly held that the office of Chief Justice will come under the
purview of Right to Information (RTI), by observing that transparency does not undermine
judicial freedom.
10. Normally, Courts, which come across several cases, reject the request of the
claimant in respect of disclosure of documents, on the ground that Writ Petition is pending
or on some other reasons. Mere pendency of the matter is not a bar to furnish details even
if it pertains to the very same case pending before the Court. Unless or otherwise there is
an interim order, then the information need not be given for the present till the disposal of
those matters. Now-a-days, the Officials are used to adopt a tactic answer in mechanical
manner that the information sought for is exempted in the light of Section 8(1)(d) of the
Act, without actually ascertaining as to whether the information sought falls within the
ambit of the said provision. Such Officers must be taught a lesson and in my view, they are
unfit to hold the post of Public Information Officer or any other post in connection with the
discharge of duties under RTI Act and they should be shown the doors, so that it will be a
lesson for other Officers to act in accordance with the terms of the Act, failing which they
may also face the similar or more consequences.
8. 8/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
11. Though the respondent herein was not present, he filed necessary documents in
the matter, based on which, this Court arrived at a conclusion. At the time of orders being
reserved in this case, this Court asked the learned Senior Counsel for TNPSC to ascertain
and inform this Court whether the errant Officials are still in service and alive and whether
they are prepared to tender any apology for their act? Since no report has been filed
before this Court to that effect as on date, this Court has proceeded to pass this order on
merits on the basis of the available materials.
12. In view of what is observed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the Writ
Petition lacks merit acceptance and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition is dismissed. The petitioner / TNPSC is directed to furnish the details to the
respondent herein sought for by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. Though the Second Appellate Authority directed the Public
Information Officer concerned and the Appellate Authority to submit their explanation for
the offence committed under the RTI Act, which is in consonance with Section 20 of the RTI
Act, it is not known whether the Official concerned submitted their explanation or
tendered any apology and it is also not known whether they are still in service or not, as
the Writ Petition is of the year 2010. Hence, the petitioner / TNPSC is directed to ascertain
the same and inform the actual position, including the names of Officials, who had failed
to discharge their official duties as adumbrated under the RTI Act, 2005, along with the
compliance report, to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, so as to enable this Court to
pass further orders in the matter. No costs.
9. 9/10
W.P.No.17677 of 2010
Call on 14.10.2020 for reporting compliance. The Government is directed to
circular this order to all its Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, Corporation, etc., so
that the Authorities, more particularly under RTI Act, will come to know of the legal
consequences of non-furnishing of the details, which the affected parties / General Public
seek for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.09.2020
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes / No
ar
Note: Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary,
St. George Fort, Chennai forthwith.