ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sat, Jul 20, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Exemption >> National Security
Supreme Court(National Security)/ CIC(National Security)
S.No. HIGH COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 W.P. (C) No. 13090 of 2006
(291.42 kB) pdf icon
11 Jul, 2012 Union Bank of India Vs. Central Information Commission & Ans

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India

RTl information sought the disclosure of all the letters sent by the former President of India, Shri K.R. Narayanan, to the then Prime Minister, Shri A.B. Vajpayee, between 28th February, 2002 to 15th March, 2002 relating to "Gujarat riots" — the CPIO denied the request in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act — Whether the Central Information Commission can peruse the correspondence/letters exchanged between the former President of India and the then Prime Minster of India for the relevant period from 28th February, 2002 till 1st March, 2002 in relation to "Gujarat riots" in order to decide as to whether the disclosure of the same would be in public interest or not and whether the bar under Article 74(2) will be applicable to such correspondence which may have the advice of Council of Minister or Prime Minister?
The Delhi High Court held that there is a complete bar under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India as to the advice tendered by the Ministers to the President and, therefore, the respondent No. 1, CIC cannot look into the advice tendered by the President to the Prime Minster and consequently by the President to the Prime Minister or Council of Ministers. The plea of the respondents that since the RTI Act has come into force, whatever bar has been created under Article 74(2) stands virtually extinguished is not tenable. The plea is not legally sustainable and cannot be accepted. -The Commission under the RTI Act has no such constitutional power which is with the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226 & 32 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the interim order passed by the CIC for perusal of the record in respect of which there is bar under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India is wholly illegal and unconstitutional. The order dated 8th August, 2006 passed by CIC is set aside.
2 W.P. (C) 2651 / 2012
(311.12 kB) pdf icon
17 May, 2012 Union of India Vs. G. Krishnan

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India
The respondent sought from PIO of the petitioner the summary of the report submitted to the MOEF by the WGEEP under the chairmanship of Prof. Madhav Gadgil and their report on the Athirappilly HEP Kerala — the respondent preferred a first appeal, which was also rejected on the ground that the disclosure of the said report would prejudicially affect the ''strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State" — the petitioner raised the defence available under section 8(I)(a) the RTI Act to deny the supply of the information sought by the respondent —
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the CIC for allowing the respondent's appeal and directing disclosure of WGEEP report prepared by Prof. Madhav Gadgil committee and panel.
Total Case uploaded: 2