<?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>2019 (11) TMI 895 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388646</link>
    <description>SC held the Supreme Court is a single public authority including the office of the CJI, and the CJI&#039;s office is not a separate public authority. The Court affirmed that information held by a public authority is disclosable under the RTI subject to Sections 8-11 exemptions and a public-interest/proportionality balancing test. Fiduciary-relationship exemption under Section 8(1)(e) generally did not apply to judicial collegium records; privacy and third-party confidentiality require balancing under Section 8(1)(j) and proviso to Section 11(1). The HC order directing disclosure of judges who declared assets was upheld; certain matters were remitted to the CPIO to re-examine with notice to third parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 895 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388646</link>
      <description>SC held the Supreme Court is a single public authority including the office of the CJI, and the CJI&#039;s office is not a separate public authority. The Court affirmed that information held by a public authority is disclosable under the RTI subject to Sections 8-11 exemptions and a public-interest/proportionality balancing test. Fiduciary-relationship exemption under Section 8(1)(e) generally did not apply to judicial collegium records; privacy and third-party confidentiality require balancing under Section 8(1)(j) and proviso to Section 11(1). The HC order directing disclosure of judges who declared assets was upheld; certain matters were remitted to the CPIO to re-examine with notice to third parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>