Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“Central Information Commission Dismisses RTI Complaint Seeking Mortgage Details, Cites ‘Interrogative Nature’ and ‘Personal Information’ as Grounds”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed an RTI complaint filed by Go Neelahram against the State Bank of India (SBI), stating that the queries were “interrogative in nature” and contained “elements of personal information of a third-party borrower.”

In a detailed judgment, Information Commissioner Saroj Punhani observed, “The information sought by the Complainant is interrogative in nature which does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se.” The Commission also noted that the queries contained elements that are protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which pertains to personal information.

The complaint originated from an RTI application filed by Go Neelahram, seeking details about mortgage deeds, land ownership changes, and loan transactions between D. Krishnamoorthy and SBI. The CPIO had initially denied the information, citing that it was third-party information and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Backing the CPIO’s decision, the Commission referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. And Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors., to emphasize that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to furnish information that requires drawing inferences or making assumptions.

The Commission also found “no malafide intent” on the part of the CPIO in denying the information and stated, “No further action is required in the matter.”

The judgment has been met with mixed reactions, with some legal experts stating that it upholds the sanctity of personal information, while others argue that it could set a precedent limiting the scope of the RTI Act.

The complaint has been disposed of accordingly, and the CPIO has been directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions with the Complainant.

Go Neelahram  vs STATE BANK OF INDIA, RBO 2

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Go_Neelahram_vs_State_Bank_Of_India_on_1_September_2023_CIC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News