Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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

  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:32 AM
Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order
  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:31 AM
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court
  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:30 AM
Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:28 AM
Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court
  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:27 AM
Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court
  • by sayum
    30 September 2026 9:26 AM
Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court