High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“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