MP High Court Orders Declaration Of NSUI President Exam Result; Pulls Up CIC, Imposes Fine On Info Panel

MP High Court Orders Declaration Of NSUI President Exam Result

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The principal bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur has asked state government to declare result of state NSUI president Ravi Parmar and facilitate his admission in MSc within 4 weeks. The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf passed the order.

As per order, state government has been directed to declare the results of the petitioner for examination, which he took in October 2024.

Advocate Abhishek Pandey told Free Press, “FIR was registered against Ravi Parmar following protest he staged against government and as per eligibility criteria, he was not allowed to appear in MSc eaxmiantion. Parmar approached HC which instructed to allow Parmar to fill form. Now his result has not been declared. So, HC has instructed state government to declare results and include Parmar for counseling session.”

HC Pulls Up CIC, Imposes Fine On Info Panel

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Principal Bench of the High Court in Jabalpur has pulled up Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), stating that it has abdicated its statutory responsibilities and acted as an agent of the government.

The court said that the CIC had failed to examine the facts of a case in sufficient detail. In its ruling, the Court imposed a fine of Rs 40,000 on the State Information Commission, to be paid to the petitioner, Neeraj Negam, who had been deprived of the requested information within the mandated 30-day period.

Neeraj Negam had filed a Right to Information (RTI) application on March 26, 2019, requesting details from the Directorate of Veterinary Department.

The application was received by authorities the same day. However, despite the legal requirement to provide the information within 30 days, the Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to fulfill the request.

Under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, information that is not provided within the stipulated time should be given free of charge. Advocate VS Choudhary, representing the Information Commissioner, argued that the Public Information Officer received the application on March 27, 2019.

However, the application, which was on record, clearly bore the seal showing March 26, 2019, as the date of receipt. He said that this discrepancy not only undermined the state’s position but also exposed the failure of authorities to accurately read and present the facts in front of the court.