Today (15th May): The Delhi High Court has asked a former CVO of AIIMS to respond to the CBI’s appeal on alleged corruption at the trauma center. The officer has four weeks to file a counter-affidavit. The court will hear the matter on July 29. The CBI argues that disclosing investigation details could jeopardize public interest and informants’ safety.
The Supreme Court cautioned against misrepresenting facts or prejudicing ongoing legal proceedings through social media comments, expressing concern over the misuse of social media in pending court matters. They also addressed a contempt case involving premature social media claims of victory. The Court emphasized the seriousness of parties interfering with ongoing proceedings.
![[Electoral Bond Data] SBI Refuses to Disclose Data Under RTI Act](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-23.png?resize=447%2C269&ssl=1)
On Wednesday (10th April): The State Bank of India (SBI) refused to disclose electoral bond data under the RTI Act, citing exemptions related to fiduciary capacity and public interest. This refusal, including the denial of information about the payment to lawyer Harish Salve, has raised concerns about transparency and accountability, undermining democratic principles and public interest. The case may reflect future changes in RTI Act exemptions under the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Today (8th April): The Supreme Court rejected AAP leader Sanjay Singh’s appeal regarding the disclosure of PM Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications. The Court refused to intervene in the defamation case against Singh, upholding the summons issued by the trial court. The case will proceed, emphasizing that free speech does not extend to defamation.
The Delhi High Court clarified that the CBI must disclose information related to corruption and human rights violations under the RTI Act, rejecting blanket exemptions. This reaffirms the importance of transparency and accountability, ensuring that exemptions do not undermine the Act’s purpose. The ruling emphasizes the balance between confidentiality in investigations and the public’s right to information.
In a notable legal development, the Delhi High Court has reversed a previous decision that mandated the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to disclose information regarding the alleged phone tapping of a mobile user, who is also a lawyer. This ruling effectively nullifies the directives of both a single-judge bench of the High Court […]