Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“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