RTI Act applicable to Century Club as it is a ‘public authority': Karnataka High Court
Patron-in-chief
The club was started by then Maharaja of Mysore Narasimha Raja Wadiyar, who was its patron-in-chief, and Sir M. Visvesvaraya. '... if the valuation of the land of 7.5 acres as of today is taken into consideration, the same would run into hundreds of crores if not thousands, and the contribution made by the members of the club, as membership fees or any other head of account, pales into insignificance. In that view of the matter, it is clearly and categorically established that there is a substantial contribution made by the State, i.e. the erstwhile Kingdom of Mysore, through the Maharaja of Mysore', the court said.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the club, which had questioned the 2018 order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC).
Land given by govt.
The SIC had said that the club has to be treated as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act as it has benefited from the land given by the State government in 1913 while directing the club to provide information under the RTI Act to the public.
The court said that the club had not made any payment to the then Maharaja of Mysore or the Kingdom of Mysore for the land and no specific document has been placed on record to indicate that the said land belonged personally to the Maharaja of Mysore.
Not personal property
'The grant made in the name of the Maharaja of Mysore would also indicate that it is not the personal property of the Maharaja,' the court noted.
On the club's contention that day-to-day activities, expenses, maintenance etc., are carried out from the contribution of the members, the court said that the fact still remains that without the land, the activities of the club could not be run.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
State govt committed to implementing ‘Super Six': Anam
Panyam: Endowments Minister Anam Ramanarayana Reddy participated in the 'First Step in Supervision' programme at Durvesi village in Gadivemula mandal in Nandyal district on Tuesday. Speaking to mediapersons, the Minister highlighted the government's commitment to public welfare through the 'Super Six' schemes. He remarked that although many had initially criticised these schemes, the people believed in their benefits and supported the government. He confirmed that the schemes were currently being implemented across all mandals of the Panyam constituency. Fulfilling a local demand, Minister Anam announced the construction of a temple for Goddess Sunkulamma in Durvesi. He strongly criticised the previous YSRCP government, alleging that it had misused land documents for political gains and conspired to mortgage large extents of farmers' land under the pretext of government ownership. The Minister also announced that from August 15, the State would implement a free bus travel scheme and soon launch the 'Adabidda Nidhi' initiative to support women until they secure marriage or employment. In a series of announcements related to temple development, the Minister said temple priests would receive a monthly honorarium of Rs 10,000 for conducting rituals such as Dhupa-Deepa-Naivedyam. He revealed that Rs 43 crore had been allocated for 47 temples in the district and Rs 4 crore had been sanctioned for development works in Kalvabugga. Lauding Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's leadership, he said the Chief Minister fulfills promises with action, unlike others who merely issue empty assurances.
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Kanwar Yatra: Display licenses - SC refuses to stay QR code directives to eateries
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the 'QR' code directive for eateries along Kanwar Yatra route in UP, Uttarakhand and directed all hotel owners along the route to display their licences and registration certificates in line with the statutory requirements. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not going into the other issues over display of names of the hotel or dhaba owner and the QR code, Tuesday being the last day of the Kanwar Yatra. 'We are told that today is the last day of the yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage we would only pass an order that all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements,' the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others. Senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the UP government should have sought the modification of the court's 2024 order before issuing the QR code directives. Singhvi argued the state government was trying to ostracise and exclude minorities by its QR code directive for eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route. 'This is the most divisive initiative, to ostracise people during the yatra, as if these people are untouchables. Will my surname ensure that 'kanwariyas' receive good quality food not menu card? This is the most divisive initiative possible,' the senior lawyer submitted. Referring to news reports over the alleged attacks on certain shops by kanwariyas, the senior lawyer said, 'When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace.' Responding to his submission, Justice Sundresh said people had different food choices and a vegetarian may choose to go to only a place serving exclusively vegetarian food, especially during a religious pilgrimage. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said directions were issued in line with the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regulations. 'There are people in this country who will not eat in there brother's house if meat is cooked. There are sentiments of devotees,' Rohatgi said, 'and as per the regulations under the Act they require photo identity. Why are you scared of showing your name? I don't understand.' Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing other petitioners, said the eateries along this route only sold vegetarian items during this period according to local regulations. Justice Sundresh observed a customer must have the choice of knowing if a place was exclusively selling vegetarian items throughout. 'If a hotel is running as a vegetarian hotel all through, then the question of indicating names and other things will not arise. But if only for the purpose of yatra, somebody stops serving non-vegetarian and starts selling vegetarian, the consumer should know,' the judge remarked.
