<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</title>
    <link>https://legalframe.in/rss/author/prof-dr-nitin-jaglal-untwal</link>
    <description>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator></dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>
    <item>
        <title>Upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/upheld-the-use-of-urdu-alongside-marathi-on-the-signboard-of-the-municipal-council-patur-in-akola</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/upheld-the-use-of-urdu-alongside-marathi-on-the-signboard-of-the-municipal-council-patur-in-akola</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in *Mrs. Varshatai W/o Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors.* (**2025 INSC 486**) upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola district. The appellant, a former Municipal Council member, challenged the presence of Urdu text, arguing that Marathi alone should be used for official purposes. The Municipal Council had passed a resolution on February 14, 2020, affirming the bilingual signboard due to the significant Urdu-speaking population and longstanding practice since 1956. Although the Collector upheld the appellant’s objection in December 2020 under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, this decision was overturned by the Divisional Commissioner on April 30, 2021. The appellant’s subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on June 30, 2021. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 13820/2021, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 came into force, mandating the use of Marathi but not explicitly banning additional languages. After the matter was remanded, the Bombay High Court on April 10, 2024, ruled that the use of Urdu did not violate the 2022 Act. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that language is a medium of communication, not a marker of religion, and recognized Urdu as an Indian language protected under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. It cited constitutional provisions, including Articles 345 and 351, and emphasized India’s linguistic diversity, referencing historical support for Hindustani by leaders like Nehru and Gandhi. The judgment underscored that Urdu is widely used across India, including in legal terminology, and condemned linguistic prejudice. In a culturally rich reflection, the Court quoted poetry to personify Urdu’s misunderstood status. Ultimately, it held that the appellant’s objection lacked legal basis and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the constitutional value of linguistic plurality. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:30:19 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>The  Cooperative Societies cannot be treated as public authority.; Bombay High Court J</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/the-cooperative-societies-cannot-be-treated-as-public-authority-bombay-high-court-j</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/the-cooperative-societies-cannot-be-treated-as-public-authority-bombay-high-court-j</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ In this case, the petitioner, Jalgaon Jillha Urban Cooperative Bank, argued that it should not fall under the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The bank claimed that as a cooperative institution registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, it is not a &quot;public authority&quot; as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It further contended that it does not receive any financial assistance from the government, nor is it under government control, and therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act should not apply to it.
The bank also cited Section 34A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, stating that it restricts disclosure of certain sensitive and confidential banking information, which reinforces its claim of exemption from the RTI obligations.
However, the court considered the role of authorities like the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who are appointed under state legislation and exercise regulatory oversight over cooperative societies. The court noted that such authorities are indeed &quot;public authorities&quot; under the RTI Act and hold information about cooperative institutions. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, any information accessible by a public authority can be requested under RTI—even if it pertains to a private entity.
Points to be noted :
•	A cooperative bank may not be directly classified as a public authority.
•	However, if public officials (like the Registrar) who regulate the cooperative sector possess relevant information, it is subject to RTI requests.
•	Confidential banking information may still be protected under exemptions like Section 8 of the RTI Act or Section 34A of the Banking Regulation Act. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:28:18 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>RTI Appeal Dismissed by CIC for Seeking Flight Schedule Data Already in Public Domain</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/rti-appeal-dismissed-by-cic-for-seeking-flight-schedule-data-already-in-public-domain</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/rti-appeal-dismissed-by-cic-for-seeking-flight-schedule-data-already-in-public-domain</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ On 6 January 2020, the Central Information Commission (CIC) delivered its decision in case File No: CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/142150, concerning an RTI application filed by Anupkumar Ramanarayan Sony. The appellant had sought details of flight numbers, operating airlines, and actual departure times for flights from Mumbai to Indore on 13 April 2018, including a full list of flights within 24 hours.
The RTI was originally submitted on 23 April 2018, but no reply was received from the CPIOs of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appellant filed a first appeal on 20 May 2018, which also went unanswered. A second appeal was then submitted on 28 June 2018.
During the hearing conducted via video conferencing, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his application. Representatives from both AAI and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. were present. The private airport operator stated that a written submission had already been sent to the CIC with a copy marked to the appellant.
Upon reviewing the records, Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha observed that the information requested—flight schedules—is readily available in the public domain. He criticized the misuse of the RTI mechanism for acquiring such publicly accessible data, noting it unnecessarily burdened the resources of the AAI and the Commission.
As a result, the Commission dismissed the appeal, citing that such use of RTI wasted public resources and conflicted with the ongoing digitalization efforts of the country.
Citation:
Central Information Commission, Decision dated 06/01/2020, File No: CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/142150. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:25:54 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Provide action taken report on complaint under RTI; CIC</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/provide-action-taken-report-on-complaint-under-rti-cic</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/provide-action-taken-report-on-complaint-under-rti-cic</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ Summary:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma filed two identical RTI applications dated 11.03.2017 with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, seeking information regarding action taken on complaints he had made to the Ministry of Finance and the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Bank. Dissatisfied with the responses from the CPIO (22.03.2017) and the First Appellate Authority (29.04.2017), he filed second appeals (01.05.2017) before the Central Information Commission (CIC). A hearing was conducted on 28.12.2018.
The appellant contended that he was not informed about the action taken against the officials named in his complaints and that information was wrongly denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondents claimed that status reports and related communications had already been provided and that further information such as investigation reports was exempt under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j), as it involved third-party confidential information.
The Commission, citing the Delhi High Court judgment in Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur &amp; Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016, held that a complainant has the right to know the outcome of their complaint but not the detailed internal deliberations. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (SLP (C) No. 27734/2012), confirming that disciplinary proceedings documents are personal information and exempt from disclosure.
Directions:
•	The CPIO was directed to provide the appellant with specific information regarding what action was taken on his complaints within four weeks from receipt of the order.
•	However, information such as inquiry reports and internal notings was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) due to privacy concerns.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partially allowed with directions to disclose the action taken but not the confidential inquiry reports. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:24:10 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Mandatory to provide marks to ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment;SC R</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/mandatory-to-provide-marks-to-ensure-transparency-and-fairness-in-recruitmentsc-r</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/mandatory-to-provide-marks-to-ensure-transparency-and-fairness-in-recruitmentsc-r</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ Reference - Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025
The Supreme Court, through a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, recently upheld a decision by the Bombay High Court concerning the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The case involved a petitioner, Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, who had applied for the position of Junior Clerk in the District Court, Pune. Although shortlisted and called for an interview, he was not selected. Seeking clarity on the selection process, he filed an RTI request for the marks of all candidates involved in the recruitment process. His request was denied on the grounds of confidentiality.
The Bombay High Court, in its November 11, 2024 judgment, ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that marks obtained in a public recruitment process are not “personal information” exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The court emphasized that such information relates to a public activity and should be available to ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment.
The Supreme Court endorsed this view, reaffirming that disclosure of such information is justified when it serves the public interest. The judgment strengthens the principle that selection procedures for public posts must be open to scrutiny, reinforcing accountability in public administration. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:21:44 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>