Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'defamation'.
Found 4 results
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI in Mediahe court issued summons to Jasram Kaim, former Head of the Department (Education), NDMC where the two primary teachers are posted, for September 30. Additional District Judge Kamini Lau's order came on a suit filed by teachers Sandeep Dabas and Mahinder Sharma and retired school principal Kamal Kant Kaushik seeking damages and compensation of Rs 15 lakh from Kaim for allegedly defaming them in a meeting of NDMC's Standing Committee. The plaintiffs, who claimed to be RTI activists, alleged in the suit that they were defamed in the notings made on the departmental file with regard to the sexual harassment by them, which according to the plaintiffs, had been circulated to the higher officials and other members of the department and also to the Standing Committee. Read more at; Court summons ex-director of education in defamation suit | Business Standard News
Hello, I would like to know whether any legal action can be taken against a some persons who are filing RTI against an individual by asking about his/her personal information and constantly by giving wrong address wherein all the replies related to queries and first appeal is returned by the postal authorities as unclaimed and the appellant does not turn up for the hearing. Kindly reply immediately as it has led to an harassment of the staff as well as defamation against the third party on whom information is sought. As there is no cost per month three to four RTI queries are posted on the same matter but the appellant's address is always wrong. Can we take action against such people.
Under RTI to the PIO , whether can I ask about a Govt. Servant Past criminal history, any pending criminal cases, or disciplinary action is pending ,has he appeared with respect to any criminal court case as a witness or has he attending a criminal court case as a witness. After asking this under RTI, If any case if it is not there , whether will he file a defamation case against RTI applicant.
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at http://www.dnaindia.com on January 28, 2010 New Delhi: Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar's plea in the Supreme Court for transfer of a criminal defamation case outside Gujarat has been opposed by the complainant on the grounds that she allegedly suppressed various material facts and documents. The application filed by complainant VK Saxena, president of Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), who has opposed her plea for transfer of the case to Delhi, sought the permission of the court to place evidence on record to substantiate his allegations. He has sought to produce documents to prove that the main purpose of shifting the case to Delhi was to linger the proceedings on one or the other "false grounds" as has been done by her in other cases which were transfered from Gujarat. The NBA leader has sought transfer of the case filed by Saxena in a Gujarat in 2006 for her allegedly defamatory remarks during a TV debate pertaining to Sardar Sarovar Project. In the application, while opposing Patkar's plea, he gave reference of another defamation case which was transferred to Delhi on her plea by the Supreme Court in which she sought exemption from personal appearance by allegedly placing false medical certificate from a hospital in Nandurbar, Gujarat. The NCCL president submitted that the information gathered by his NGO under the RTI Act from the Nandurbar Police clearly stated that when she sought exemption from appearance in the Patiala house court in New Delhi on March 3, 2009 on medical grounds, she had taken out procession on the NBA's demand to the office of the collector. Saxena had filed the complaint against Patkar on June 29, 2006 before metropolitan magistrate Gheekanta, Ahmedabad, accusing her of making a false statement that he received civil contracts related to the SSP in the name of NCCL. The NBA activist has told the Supreme Court that she was seeking transfer of a criminal defamation case against her outside Gujarat as there was a threat to her life in the state from the members of the NGO. Patkar, a Magsaysay award winner, has sought transfer of the case to Delhi, contending that the apex court had earlier shifted proceedings of another defamation case filed in Ahmedabad against her by Saxena. The case is pending before a metropolitan magistrate's court here. She has alleged that Saxena's complaint was politically motivated as he was antagonistic to her ideology and her work. She claimed that he was instrumental in publishing many defamatory advertisements against her and NBA in various dailies for which she filed a defamation case in Delhi. The activist submitted that instead of her, it was Saxena who had made several defamatory allegations against her and the NBA in the television programme in which both had participated over telephone. Patkar and Saxena are locked in five criminal cases against each other. The NBA activist has registered three cases against Saxena. Source: Application filed to oppose Medha Patkar's plea in Supreme Court - dnaindia.com