List of Current Affairs

Uttarakhand High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, in Vijendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2026), dismissed a Special Appeal challenging denial of RTI information about the appellant's estranged wife's government service, holding that no material existed to show a public interest capable of outweighing her right to privacy under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act. 

What was the Background of Vijendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2026) Case? 

• The appellant had sought information under the RTI Act concerning the government service of his estranged wife, who worked as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Junior High School. 
• Matrimonial disputes between the appellant and the respondent-wife were pending before the Family Court at the time the RTI application was filed. 
• The respondent-wife opposed disclosure, alleging that the application was moved with ulterior motives and that the appellant had previously caused multiple complaints to be filed against her before various authorities, causing her grave mental harassment. 
• Taking her objection into account, the Public Information Officer rejected the RTI application, after which the appellant's first appeal remained undecided within the statutory timeline, prompting a second appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner. 
• The Chief Information Commissioner dismissed the second appeal on April 1, 2026, and the appellant's subsequent writ petition against this order was also dismissed by a Single Judge on May 20, 2026. 
• The Single Judge had relied on Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and the strained relationship between the parties to hold that the authorities' refusal to disclose the information did not warrant interference. 
• Before the Division Bench, the appellant's counsel argued that a pending Public Interest Litigation and an ongoing Special Investigation Team probe into the alleged manipulated appointment of several Assistant Teachers showed that disclosure was in the public interest, and that the respondent-wife's own appointment had similarly been procured through manipulation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Supporting Material: The Division Bench noted that the Public Interest Litigation referred to by the appellant was still pending, and that no evidence had been annexed with the writ petition to establish, even prima facie, that the respondent's appointment was obtained through any foul means. 
• On the Respondent's Objection and Harassment Allegation: The Court took note of the respondent-wife's strong objection to disclosure and her allegation that the appellant had, in the past, caused complaints to be filed against her with the object of subjecting her to harassment. 
• On Balancing Public Interest Against Privacy: The Bench held that, as matters stood, there was no material on record to indicate involvement of any public interest which could outweigh the respondent's right to privacy, and accordingly found no good ground to interfere with the orders of the authorities under the Act or the Single Judge's order. 
• On the Outcome: The Special Appeal was dismissed, and any pending application in the matter was also disposed of, leaving the CIC's and the Single Judge's orders declining disclosure intact. 

What are Sections 8(1)(j) & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005? 

About the Act: 

• Enacted: 2005, by the Parliament of India 
• Purpose: Enables citizens to freely access information held by public authorities. 
• Objective: Promotes transparency and accountability in the working of government institutions. 
• Applicability: Covers all levels of government — central, state, and local bodies 
• Right Conferred: Citizens can request information without needing to give a reason for the request. 
• Time Limit: Information must generally be provided within 30 days of the request (48 hours if it concerns life or liberty). 
• First RTI Application: Filed by Shahid Raza Burney in Pune. 
• Key Exemptions (Section 8): Information affecting national security, sovereignty, strategic/scientific/economic interests, or personal privacy is exempted, unless public interest justifies disclosure. 
• Overriding Effect (Section 22): RTI Act prevails over the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other inconsistent law. 
• Implementing Bodies: Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) act as appellate authorities. 
• Amendment: RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 gave the Central Government power to fix the term, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners. 

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: 

Bare Act Text: 

• Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— 
• (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. 

Key Features: 

• Personal Information Exemption: Information with no nexus to any public activity or interest is exempt from mandatory disclosure, protecting purely private matters from RTI scrutiny. 
• Privacy Safeguard: Disclosure that would cause an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted, recognising privacy as a value the Act itself seeks to protect. 
• Larger Public Interest Override: The exemption is not absolute — the Public Information Officer or appellate authority may still direct disclosure where satisfied that the larger public interest justifies it, requiring an affirmative finding rather than a presumption in favour of disclosure. 
• Parliamentary Privilege Proviso: Information that cannot be withheld from Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any citizen, ensuring RTI exemptions do not create a lower standard of transparency than that owed to the legislature. 

Section 11 of the RTI Act: 

Bare Act Text: 

Third party information.—(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. 

Key Features: 

• Mandatory Notice to Third Party: Where the requested information relates to or was supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential, the PIO must issue written notice to that third party within five days of receiving the request. 
• Right of Representation: The third party is entitled to make a submission, written or oral, on whether the information should be disclosed, and this submission must be considered before a decision is taken. 
• Decisional Discretion Retained by PIO: The third party's objection is a mandatory consideration but not a veto — the PIO or appellate authority ultimately decides disclosure by weighing the objection against the public interest test under Section 8(1)(j) and related provisions. 
• Object: The provision balances a third party's confidentiality and privacy interests against the transparency objectives of the RTI Act by building procedural safeguards into the disclosure process. 

Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in M/s Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), allowed an appeal challenging a penalty imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979, and in doing so explained and applied the doctrine against reformatio in peius, holding that a litigant cannot be worse off merely for having exercised a statutory right of appeal. 

What was the Background of M/s Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant airline was authorised under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979 to collect Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) from passengers travelling on international journeys, and had delayed depositing the collected tax into the government treasury on six occasions between 1994 and 1997. 
• In five of these instances, demand drafts had already been purchased before the due dates but could not be deposited on time, a delay attributed to security restrictions, while the sixth delay was attributed to the concerned employee being on emergency leave. 
• The adjudicating authority, in the original order-in-original, imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,000 on the airline for all six instances of delayed deposit of FTT. 
• Aggrieved by this penalty, the appellant filed an appeal, which resulted in the matter being remanded for fresh adjudication, and on remand the adjudicating authority passed a de novo order enhancing the penalty manifold to Rs. 71,29,140. 
• The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this enhancement before the appellate authority, the revisional authority under the Ministry of Finance, and the Bombay High Court, contending that the increase placed it in a position far worse than if it had never appealed at all, since the penalty had risen to over 590 times the original amount solely because it had exercised its right of appeal. 
• The appellate authority had held that the original penalty of Rs. 12,000 was erroneous, being below the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 38(3), and that this error had merely been corrected on remand, a view with which the revisional authority and the High Court concurred, holding that since the remand was not a limited one, the adjudicating authority was free to re-examine and enhance the penalty in accordance with the statute. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Core Question Before the Court: The Bench framed the issue as whether a litigant can be placed in a worse position by approaching an appellate forum provided under the law or by approaching a court of law, and answered this question in the negative. 
• On the Doctrine of Reformatio in Peius: Relying heavily on the Bombay High Court's earlier decision in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan himself, the Court explained that the maxim reformatio in peius means a change towards the worse, and that in many jurisdictions the practice of a higher forum making a lower order worse for the very party who appealed it is forbidden. 
• On the Nature of the Principle: The Court observed that the principle, understood as "no reformatio in peius" or "prohibition of reformatio in peius", denotes a rule of fair procedure under which using a legal remedy should not aggravate the situation of the person availing it, and held that this can be seen as part of natural justice as well as a principle of equality. 
• On Supporting Precedents: The Bench noted that the Bombay High Court in Jyoti Plastic Works had relied on Jawal Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs in affirming that an appellant cannot be worse off by reason of filing an appeal, and further invoked its own recent decision in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the principle had been endorsed and applied to hold that no appellant, by filing an appeal, can be placed in a position worse than what existed prior to filing the appeal. 
• On the Irrelevance of the Original Error: Applying the principle to the facts, the Bench held that the enhancement of penalty from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 71,29,140 ensued solely because the appellant had exercised its right to appeal, and that this could not be countenanced regardless of whether the original penalty computation was technically erroneous. 
• On the Final Outcome: The Court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant in its entirety, along with the orders of the Bombay High Court, the revisional authority, the first appellate authority, and the de novo order-in-original insofar as they related to the six instances of delayed FTT deposit, and directed a refund of any amount already paid towards the penalty, with interest at 9% per annum, within three months.

What is Doctrine of No Reformatio in Peius? 

• Meaning: The maxim denotes "a change towards the worse" and, in its negative formulation as "no reformatio in peius", stands for the rule that a party who avails a legal remedy such as an appeal or revision should not end up worse off than if it had not availed that remedy at all. 
• Basis: The doctrine draws upon principles of natural justice and equality, proceeding on the rationale that the statutory right to appeal would be rendered illusory, and litigants would be deterred from approaching appellate forums, if doing so exposed them to the risk of a harsher outcome than the one originally imposed. 
• Application in This Case: The doctrine was applied to hold that an enhancement in penalty triggered solely by the appellant's own appeal, irrespective of whether the original order suffered from a computational or statutory error, could not be sustained.

What is the Finance Act, 1979? 

The Finance Act, 1979 is an annual finance legislation enacted by the Parliament of India to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for that year, primarily dealing with taxation. 

• Nature: Like other Finance Acts, it is passed annually to implement the Union Budget's tax proposals, including amendments to direct and indirect tax laws, and introduction of new levies. 
• Foreign Travel Tax (FTT): The Finance Act, 1979 introduced the Foreign Travel Tax, a tax levied on passengers travelling out of India by air or sea, in addition to their ticket fare. 
• Section 35: This provision authorised carriers (such as airlines) to collect the Foreign Travel Tax from passengers on international journeys on behalf of the government, making the airline a collecting agent rather than the party ultimately bearing the tax. 
• Section 38(3): This provision dealt with the consequence of delay in depositing the collected FTT into the government treasury, prescribing a penalty for such delay — not less than the amount of tax involved, extending up to twice that amount. 
• Repeal/Discontinuation: The Foreign Travel Tax under this Act was later abolished (in 1989), but the Act remains relevant for judiciary and taxation exam purposes largely due to its penalty provisions and the case law interpreting them, such as the Saudi Arabian Airlines case discussed above.