1. Girish Ramchander Deshpande V/s CIC

2. SLP(C) 27734/2012.

3. RTI application seeking.

a) 3rd respondent’s personal matters of service career.

b) Movable and immovable properties.

c) Assets & liabilities.

4. Supreme Court held that –

— Copies of all memos issued to third respondent, orders of punishment are qualified to personal information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

— Details disclosed by the a person in his interne tax returns are also personal information also covered under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless involves larger public interest.

5. Following information was however asked to be disclosed in respect of 3rd

respondent. –

— Copy of appointment order & salary details.

— Copy of promotion order.

— Transfer order.

— Copy of rules.

— TA/DA claimed.

— Copy of Charge Sheet & Inquiry Reports.

CBSEV/s

Aditya BandopadhyaySLP(C) – 7526/2009

CA – 6454/2011

1. RTI Application – Inspection & Revaluation of answer sheets.2. CBSE rejected/ denied.3. CIC – also upheld CBSE decision.4. CBBE – (i) As per bye laws it was impermissible, only

verification of marks permissible.(ii) 60 to 65 lakhs answer-sheets kept for 3

months only.(iii) section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act.

5(a) High Court held – keeping in view definition of ‘Information’ under section 2(f) – Examining bodies are bound to provide inspection of evaluated answer sheets.

(b) revaluation rejected as it does not come under RTI.

6. Before Supreme Court 7. Citations. 1) State of Uttar Pradesh V/s Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428.

People of country have a right to know. 2) Dinesh Trivedi V/s. UOI (1997) 4 SCC306

“Democracy expects openness and openers is concomitant of a free society”.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant-” “ fine balance is needed.”

3) People’s union of Civil Liberation.V/sUOI(2004) 2 SCC 476

Held – a) Answer book is a record.b) Evaluated answer book is record containing opinionof the examiner.c) No copyright, Not pertains to security.d) Provisions of RTI Act will prevail over the bye laws of examining body.e) Court explained fiduciary relationship. Held that examining body is in not in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee.f) Examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship, will be liable to make full disclosure to examinees and not to disclose of only other examinee.g) Examining body does no have fiduciary relationship with the examiners.

h) Exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available.i) names and particulars of examiners/ co

scrutinizers/ head examiners are exempted u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

j) the power of CIC under19(8) of the RTI Act does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period later than that provided under rule/ regulations of the PA.

k) RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing.

l) does not contain obligation on PA to collect & collate non available information

m) not required to furnish an advice/ opinion.n) Threat of penalties under RTI should not lead to employees

prioritizing, information furnishing at the cost of their normal duties.

CONCLUSION :

— Examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of

their answer sheets.

Khanspuram G.V/sAdministrative officers and othersSLP(C) 34868/29009

— RTI Applicationfor what reasons, the respondent No. 4 (Judicial officer)

had decided his misc appeal dishonestly (in a particular manner)

HELD :

1. Under RTI, applicant is entitled to get a copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders etc.

2. He can not ask as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders have been passed especially pertaining to judicial matters.

3. Application per se illegal/ unwarranted.4. Petitioner has misused provisions of the RTI Act.

UPSC V/sCIC & OthersRTI Apllication

1) Disclosure of separate cut off marks for different subjects for

different categories of students in PE-2006.

2) Disclosure of marks obtained by each candidate.

3) Disclosure of model answers to each last papers.

UPSC –denied information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. AA – 1) No subject wise cut off are fixed by the

commission, information is non existent, short listed candidates are in the order of merit by adopting scaling method for optional subjects.

2) information (2) & (3) will seriously endanger the secrecy and confidentially of said examinations.

CIC - Asked UPSC to disclose information with some reservation wrt query(3).Copyright issues.

High Court - UPSC stated that revelation will help coaching

institutes to promote strategizing rather than a test of substantive knowledge.

It follows (NEP) normalized --- percentile method for optional papers

— High Court directed to disclose information aslarger public interest outweighs harm to protected interests.

High Court of Delhi Vs.CIC

WP(C) 3114/2007 RTI Application – Fate of petitioner's complaint. Department AA – denied information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. CIC – Investigation has been done by DIT(Inv). The

relevant report is the outcome of

public action which needs to be disclosed. DIT

was directed to disclose report after investigation

is

complete.

Department maintained that matter is under investigation and is

exempt under section 8(1)(h)

High Court of Delhi Held :

1) The Act is effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and

expression.

2) Information holds the key to resources, benefits and distribution of

power.

3) Access to information under section (3) of the Act is the rule and

exemptions under section 8, the exception.

4) Mere existence of an investigation process can not be a ground

for refusal of information the authority withholding information

must should satisfactorily give reasons as to why release of such

information would hamper the investigation process.