Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Right to Information Act

10 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

S. PANNEER SELVAM & ORSversusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2015 INSC 61327 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, graduate Assistant Engineers of the general category, challenged the seniority of reserved‑category Junior Engineers who had been promoted to Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADE) under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service Rules. The issue was whether Article 16(4A) of the Constitution

CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.)versusCOMMANDING OFFICER & ORS.

2023 INSC 85726 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a retired Air Force corporal, was transfused with a unit of blood at 171 Military Hospital in 2002 during Operation Parakram. He later discovered he was HIV positive in 2014 and alleged that the transfusion was the source of infection, seeking compensation for loss of earnings, medical expenses, mental a

RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 23222 April 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a candidate in the Ex‑Servicemen (BC‑B) reserved category, was initially appointed as a constable but his appointment was later quashed on the ground that ex‑servicemen candidates have priority over dependents. The High Court directed that his case be considered in the general category, but the Superinte

RATNAGIRI GAS & POWER PVT. LTD.versusRDS PROJECTS LTD. & ORS.

2012 INSC 48218 October 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The joint‑venture Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd. (RGPPL) cancelled a breakwater tender after discovering that the lowest bidder, RDS Projects Ltd., did not meet the qualifying criteria of a 400‑metre offshore breakwater. RDS first withdrew a writ petition (8252/2010) with liberty to challenge its exclusion in a fresh

MOLUGU MAHIPAL REDDY AND ORS.versusM PRADEEP KUMAR AND ORS.

2015 INSC 103516 October 2015Remitted to Lower Court

A public‑interest writ petition (PIL No.130 of 2014) challenged the registration of land in Survey Nos.215 and 222, alleging illegal occupation of government land. The High Court allowed the PIL and directed officials to act, even extending its order to Survey Nos.244 and 246, which the appellants claimed were private

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusARUN GEORGE & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2015 INSC 3514 January 2015Dismissed

The State of Kerala sanctioned new aided courses in private colleges on the condition that it would incur no additional financial commitment. The private college management appointed seven teachers for these courses under the Direct Payment Agreement, but the university rejected their appointments citing lack of vacanc

ANIL BHARDWAJversusTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 59113 October 2020Dismissed

Anil Bhardwaj was selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in Madhya Pradesh but was declared ineligible after a committee found a criminal case (FIR under IPC sections 498A, 406, 34) pending against him. The committee’s decision, based on the pending case, led to his name being deleted from the select lis

SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.versusUMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

2019 INSC 6538 May 2019Disposed off

The Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society had expelled 27 members and later admitted 15 new members, including the alleged contemnors, who were allotted flats. The Supreme Court later ordered the readmission of the expelled members and set aside the allotments to the new members, directing them to vacate. The new me

SOMDEV KAPOORversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

2013 INSC 6827 October 2013Dismissed

The appellant, proprietor of a hotel and restaurant, applied in 1992 for a foreign liquor bar licence, which remained pending for years and was finally granted a temporary licence in 2006. Respondents filed a public‑interest writ seeking cancellation of the licence, arguing that Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Select

BHIM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 2766 May 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme as unconstitutional, arguing that the allocation of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India violated Articles 266(3), 275, 282 and the principle of separation of powers, and gave MPs an unfair electoral advantage. The Court exa

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search