Transcript High Court`s Judgements on RTI
Judgments of various High Courts on RTI Act,2005
DECISION IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009 BY THE HON’BLE SC
In Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Adminstrative Officer cum Assistant State Public Information Officer & Others the SC has held that:
The information which already exists with a PA OR accessible by a PA under an existing Law is supposed to be given to citizen.
A Citizen is not entitled to get ‘why such opinion, advices, circulars ,orders etc’.
Section 2 (h) – Public Authority
WP No. 288/09 was filed by the CPIO Supreme Court of India against the order of CIC.
The issue for consideration was whether the CJI is a PA as defined under RTI Act and also whether the office of CPIO of SC is different from that of CJI.
Another issue was regarding the declaration of assets by judges is an information as defined u/s 2(f) The HC held that CJI & office of SC are PAs and declaration of assets is information and accordingly directed the CPIO to furnish the information
Against the said judgment the CPIO of SC filed appeal before Division bench.
The division bench upheld the judgment of the Single Bench observing that the Pa as used in the Act is of wide amplitude an includes an authority created by or under the Constitution of India ,which description holds good for CJI
Information held or under the control of a PA
In WP (civil) No. 6265 of 2007 the Delhi High Court has held that the definition given in section 2(f) & 2(j) has to be read harmoniously.
If a PA has a right to access information from a private body, under any Law, it is information as defined u/s 2(f) and has to be furnished to citizen.
It further said that a private body need not be a PA and the term private body has been used only to distinguish the term PA
The HC has further held that as per definition of
Third Party u/s 2(n) TP includes not only the PA but also any private body or person other than the person making the request.
A private body or third party can take objection under section 8 before a PIO or the IC The HC further held that to deny information the case must be brought under any of the clauses of section 8.
PIO is a Quasi –Judicial authority.
In Special Civil Application No. 17067 of 2007 the HC of Gujarat has held that the presence of a lis or contest between two contending parties before a statutory authority is sufficient to hold that such a statutory authority is quasi-judicial authority In the absence of a lis before a statutory authority ,the authority would be quasi judicial authority if it is required to act judicially. This principle was held by SC in Indian national Congress Vs Institute of Social Welfare and others. Applying this principle the HC of Gujarat has held that PIO is a Quasi – Judicial Authority and hence the PIO has to pass a reasoned order in the 3 rd party’s case
Third Party’s Rights
The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat have very deeply discussed the rights of a third party in the said case The HC has divided the rights of a third party in to two:-
Pre-Decisional rights and II.Post Decision Rights
Pre-Decisional Rights
To get a written notice if PIO intends to disclose or supply the information.
The details/nature of information asked by the applicant.
To treat the information as confidential at any stage.
To be invited for making his submission.
To take in to consideration the submission of third party by PIO.
Right of being heard.
Right to get a speaking order.
Post-Decision Rights
To get a stay order if PIO dec ided to disclose the information till the appeal period is over or appeal is disposed.
Right to get a notice in writing of the decision of PIO with statement therein that the TP is entitled to prefer an appeal . [Sec .11(3) &(4)]
Right to prefer First Appeal . [Sec.19(2)].
Right to prefer Second Appeal . [Sec.19(3)].
Right to get a chance for personal hearing before First and Second AA
Personal Information
Decision in writ petition no.1 of 2009 by the Bombay high court As far as a public servant is concerned nothing remains personal while he discharge his official duty.
A public servant continues to be a public servant for all 24 hours When a citizen asks about leave availed by a public servant such information is to be supplied and there is no question of privacy at all.
Application for leave is not a medical record at all and it also to be given when requested by citizen.
Every citizen is entitled to have the information which parliament can have.
HC of Punjab & Haryana
WP(C) No.1869/2008 In this case an amount of Rs.25000 was imposed on petitioners for not furnishing the information within time.
The petitioners challenged the order alleging that it was not their fault alone, but of Tahsildar.
According to HC The IC had examined the matter in detail before fixing the liability.
The HC observed that the officers are trying to blame each other and they are equally liable for non-supply of information to citizen.
Hence the HC justified the order of IC
HC of Andhra Pradesh [
WP No. 4108 of 2008]
In this case the petitioner filed an application under RTI to Government for list of all such IAS officers against whom Anti corruption Bureau conducted enquiries and recommended departmental action and also the cases in which the government did not accept the recommendations of the ACB and dropped further action.
Since the petitioner did not get the information he approached the CIC u/s 18.
At that time The Govt. secretary issued an order stating that the information sought by the petitioner is exempted u/s 8(1) (h) and 8(1) (j)
The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information.
Since the petitioner did not received the information he filed a Writ above.
During the pendency also the PIO did not furnish the information in spite of sufficient time granted by HC.
The HC allowed the petition with the observation of lethargic attitude of officers and government.
The HC finally ordered to furnish the information within 2 weeks
HC of Punjab & Haryana [CWP No.1785 of 2008]
The petitioner was an Advocate. He applied to PIO for certified copies of various documents. The PIO furnished the information , but with delay. He filed appeal before SIC.
He argued and proved before SIC that the delay was not deliberate or wilful. SIC admitted and dismissed the appeal Against this the petitioner filed WP.
HC held that there is no merit in the WP
HC observes that there are numerous situation for imposing penalty on PIO under section 20 of the Act.
A period of 30 days has been provided u/s 7(1) for furnishing information and delay beyond 30 days has to be without any reasonable cause.
In this case there is no room for us to believe that the delay was not reasonable or wilful or delay was actuated by malafide intention
HC of Allahabad
The petitioner made request to Amitabh Bachan for certain information relating to an advertisement telecasted in some channels, The PIO did not furnished within time and so he filed appeal before SIC.
After hearing SIC held that the provisions of RTI Act is not applicable to Bachan.
He filed WP before the HC Considering the relevant provisions under section 2 (h), 2 (j) and 11 of the Act. The HC held that Bachan had merely acted in the advertisement without accepting any amount as he was a Branch Ambassador.
The HC observed that Shri Bachan was a honorary member of UP Development Council also and he has not availed any facility attached to these posts.
The HC further held that the alleged advertisement of Baachan was not financed by the State Government directly or indirectly.
Holding the HC held that the provisions of RTI Act in respect of the alleged advertisement is not applicable to Shri Bachan and hence the petition was dismissed by HC at the admission stage itself.
HC OF HARIYANA CWP No.19682 of 2006 In this case the petitioner advocate information concerning group insurance and benevolent fund scheme mandatorily prescribed by the Punjab Bar Council for practicing advocates.
The matter came up before SIC.
During the pendency the Bar Council filed WP alleging that the SIC has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue under the provisions Advocates Act 1961.
The HC upheld the contentions of the Bar Council .
The HC held that the state of Punjab, Hariyana and UT Chandigarh have no control over Bar Council.
Hence they cannot be construe has appropriate government within the meaning of the section 2 (a) of the RTI Act.
The HC further held that the appropriate authority in the case of bar council would be Central Government and therefore the Central Information Commission would be competent to deal with the issue raised with the petition and the HC set-aside all the proceedings pending before SIC
HC OF KARNATAKA CCC No. 525 of 2008 The contempt petition has been filed for non implementation of the order passed by the Karnataka IC.
The material point for consideration of the HC was whether the contempt petition filed by the petitioner for disobedience of the order passed by the Karnataka IC in exercise of powers and functions under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act is maintainable. The HC observed that the RTI Act itself provides for penalty on the defaulting officer by levy of fine and also by recommending disciplinary action. Thus RTI Act itself provides for the procedure and remedy.
The HC further held that the RTI Act itself is a self contained code and even if it has specifically spelt out it must be deemed to have been confirmed upon the commission the power to make its order effective by having recourse to Sec.20 .
Accordingly the HC held that the complainant has to seek relief before SIC and the petition is hence not maintainable.