<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (9) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203819</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Central Information Commission&#039;s decision directing the Central Public Information Officer to disclose relevant documents to a respondent regarding their inclusion in the &quot;Agreed List&quot; under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court emphasized the respondent&#039;s right to know the grounds for inclusion, allowing for disclosure while protecting privacy by withholding certain names. It recognized the respondent&#039;s legitimate interest in understanding the basis for inclusion and the need to address any potential career stigma. The court balanced transparency with privacy concerns, affirming the disclosure within a specified timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203819</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Central Information Commission&#039;s decision directing the Central Public Information Officer to disclose relevant documents to a respondent regarding their inclusion in the &quot;Agreed List&quot; under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court emphasized the respondent&#039;s right to know the grounds for inclusion, allowing for disclosure while protecting privacy by withholding certain names. It recognized the respondent&#039;s legitimate interest in understanding the basis for inclusion and the need to address any potential career stigma. The court balanced transparency with privacy concerns, affirming the disclosure within a specified timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>