Jump to content
drsayantan

CJI vs CIC at Delhi high court.

Recommended Posts

drsayantan

Friends,

I desperately want the copy of the petition filed by the CJI at the delhi HC against the CIC's order binding the SC registry to provide the declaration of assets of the SC judges and CJI as claimed by the one MR SC Agarwal.

 

If the copy of the said petition is with anybody, please post it on the website or kindly mail it to me at xxx@yyy.zzz or send the web address from where it can be available.

 

Regards,

Sayantan Banerjee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

The order is dated 6th Jan 2009. It is available in the CIC website. The reference is

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00426

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

The copy of petition filed can be obtained from the High Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravi Maheshwari

Dr. Banerjee, It is for the first time the apex court moving a lower court over a dispute. At this juncture, only Delhi HC and Petitioner can have copy of the petition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

I don't see any reason why copy of the petition cannot be obtained by filing RTI application to Delhi High Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravi Maheshwari

Sandeep, I did not say it cannot be asked under RTI; it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAVEENA_O

High Court may forbid dissemination of the Petition in question, being subjudice and in that case Sec-8(1)(b) come into play and copy of petition may not be accessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandeepbaheti

High Court is a legal body and is bound by the law. It cannot go against the law, and prohibit disclosure of whatever documents it wants. If courts had such power, Supreme Court would have directly prohibited disclosure of judges' assets and there was no need for it to file writ petition before High Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
High Court may forbid dissemination of the Petition in question, being subjudice and in that case Sec-8(1)(b) come into play and copy of petition may not be accessed.

 

Just because the matter is sub-judice, does not mean that information cannot be disclosed. This is only possible if any court has expressly forbidden the disclosure of information:

 

8.1.b.information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

 

There are several CIC orders on these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drsayantan

friends,

 

karira, sandip baheti, raveena_o, ravi maheshwari, and taurus

 

thanks for your replies.

 

Hope you'll go through my next post, dated 20-01-2009, regarding the same issue.

 

Taurus somewhat misunderstood me & thought that I want the CIC order. I'm sorry, but I'm not that back-dated sir!!:)

 

I just wanted the petition by CJI/ SC registry, dated 16th jan, 2009.

 

However I have posted the detail of latest update in the second post.

 

I beg for everyone's pardon, as I don't have a computer and Net of my own, and have to use a local cybercafe, for which, I'm quiet irregular and slow in response. Hope you'd forgive me for that.

Regards

Sayantan Banerjee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drsayantan

For Karira,

This particular petition, the copy of which I had asked for, is not any "information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal"

Still, thanks for your concern.

Regards

Sayantan Banerjee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

Sorry. I mistook. Hasty reading sometimes lead to such mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35.....
      “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” 

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy