|S.No.||SUPREME COURT CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIVIL WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 210 of 2012||13 Sep, 2012||Namit Sharma Vs Union of India
Information Commission is bound by the Law of precedence:
Supreme Court held that, " in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, then judgments of the Supreme Court are law of the land and are binding on all courts and tribunals. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Information Commission is bound by the law of precedence, i.e., judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. In order to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in then functioning of the Commission, we direct that the Commission shall give appropriate attention to the doctrine of precedence and shall not overlook the judgments of the courts dealing with the subject and principles applicable, in a given case.
It is not only the higher court’s judgments that are binding precedents for the Information Commission, but even those of the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due acceptance and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission. The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra appeals or references in the hierarchy of the Commission. "
In this case, the Hon'ble Court has examined in details of various provisions like Section 12 etc., of the RTI Act throughout the case discussion.
Orders of the commission are subject to judicial review before the high court and then before the Supreme Court. Information commission is bound by the law of precedence i.e. judgements of the high court and the supreme court of India.
|2||SLP CRL nos 1909 and 1938 of 2011 and 2442 and 2091-2092 0f 2012||10 Jul, 2012||Subhash Popatlal Dave vs Union of India and anr
The provisions of section 3 of the RTI act, 2005 cannot be applied to cases relating to preventive detention at the pre execution stage. In other words, section 3 of the RTI act has to give way to the provisions of clause (5) of article 22 of the Constitution.
|3||Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011||12 Dec, 2011||Chief Information Commission Vs State of Manipur
The high court held that under section 18 of the act the commissioner has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such a power has already been conferred under section 19(8) of the act on the basis of an exercise under section 19 only. The division bench further came to hold that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with law.
|4||Civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011||09 Aug, 2011||Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr Appellants Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors
Provisions of the RTI act will prevail over the provisions of the bye laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information under section 8(1)(e), the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books.
|5||Civil appeal no 10044 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(c) no 32855 of 2009)||26 Nov, 2010||CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal
The case on hand raises important questions of constitutional importance relating to the position of hon’ble chief justice of India under the constitution and the independence of the judiciary in the scheme of the constitution on the one hand and on the other , fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression……
|6||Special leave petition (civil) No 34868 of 2009||04 Jan, 2010||Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Administrative Officer & Ors.
Rationale behind the judgment can't be asked under RTI Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
" A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner before the public authority is per se Illegal and unwarranted. A judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary. A judge should be free to make independent decisions. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act and upheld the decision of High Court- and dismissed the Writ Petition."
No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.