Is disclosure of reasons for seeking the information necessary under the RTI Act?
18 Apr, 2021One of the best citizen friendly laws ever promulgated by Parliament seems to be threatened by judicial interpretations which are weakening it. The recent Delhi High Court judgment which opined that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant had been widely criticised for being against the letter and spirit of law. Though part of the judgment was amended, some PIOs continue to cite it for denial of information. Further, the remaining part of the judgment contains observations which calls for action. Every conscientious citizen and certainly all lawyers must go through the analysis as put up below.
Background
In respect of certain appointments made for Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Presidential Estate, Rashtrapati Bhawan, information was sought on 6th August, 2018 under the RTI Act.
- The total no of candidates who filled the online application form of MTS examination,
- The total no. of candidates who appeared in this examination;
- All the name and address of Examination Centers in all over the India where respective MTS examination was held,
- Total no candidates as per every center,
- Name and address of examination centers of all the candidates who have been selected for appointment,
- Residential address and the father's name of all selected candidates etc.
The queries of the RTI Applicant are as given below:
"1. Kindly provide copy of Notification Circular No. A-35011/7/16-Admn.
2. Kindly provide total no of candidates who filled the online application form of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff) examination, Notification Circular No. A- 35011/7/16-Admn, and also provide total no of candidates who appeared in this examination.
3. Kindly Provide all the name and address of Examination Centers in all over the India where respective MTS examination was held.
4. Kindly Provide the information regarding total no candidates as per every center separately who appeared in this examination.
5. Kindly provide complete name and address of examination centers of all the candidates who have been selected for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, Notification Circular No. A- 35011/7/16-Admn.
6. Kindly provide complete residential address and their father's name of all selected candidates who have been appointed to the post of Multi Tasking Staff, Notification Circular No. A-35011/7/16- Admn."
Reply of PIO
The PIO provided part of the information while denying some claiming that it is a personal information and can't be provided u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of the RTI Act.
The reply of the PIO is as given below:
"1. Enclosed.
2. Total number of candidates who filled the online application form was 18416 and total number of candidates who appeared in this examination was 11257.
3. List enclosed.
4-5. No such information is available.
6. It is a personal information and can't be provided u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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. of the RTI Act, 2005. The disclosure of it has not relationship to any public activity or interest and it would cause unwarranted Invasion of the privacy of the individual."
Reply of FAA
The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the CIC.
Order of CIC dated 17.07.2020
The CIC ordered as under:-
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the judgment dated 23.09.2019 of Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shri Har Kishan Vs. President's Secretariat
as also the allegations levelled by the Appellant regarding illegal appointments in the Respondent Public Authority, the Commission directs the FAA to exercise due diligence in responding to the issues raised by the
Appellant on points 04 and 05 of the RTI application and furnish information in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order ......"
Analysis of the order of the CIC
The CIC merely directed the FAA to exercise due diligence in responding to the issues raised by the Appellant on certain points raised in the RTI application and furnish information, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In this case, the order of FAA was not even before the CIC and no query was raised to find out about whether it existed. Instead of deciding the appeal at its own level, asking the FAA to take a decision is without any legal basis.
Order of the Delhi High Court
The major observations of the High Court of Delhi in the judgment dated 12 January, 2021 are as under:
Observation 1: Para 12 of the judgment reads, “This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant”.
Observation 2: Para 12 of the judgment further says that the present writ petition is cleverly quiet about the fact that the Petitioner's daughter had applied for being considered for appointment for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff at the Rashtrapati Bhawan. The seeking of the above information, especially after the Petitioner's daughter did not obtain employment, clearly points to some ulterior motives.
Observation 3: For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
Scrutiny of the High Court judgment:
Analysis of observation 1
- The matter was listed again before the High Court on 29.01.2021 to clarify para 12 of order dated 12.01.2021. A part of the para 12 was changed and the Court directed that the modified order dated 12.01.2021 be uploaded as a corrigendum as given below:
12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever personal information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the said information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant.
- The High Court order dated 12.01.2021 had been widely criticised across all forums the issue as the issue of seeking reasons for obtaining information is already settled in terms of the statutory provisions and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The corrigendum appears to be a feeble attempt to deal with the gross error committed.
- The High Court has accepted that the bonafides of the applicant are not required except when a personal information is being sought. It is surprising that while making the corrigendum, the High Court has not cared to look into the other observations made in its earlier order dated 12.01.2021 and has not amended them. As those observations remain a part of the judgment, it means that:
- The petitioner should have informed the court that his daughter had applied for the job of MTS.
- His being silent was a clever step.
- His seeking of information was with ulterior motives.
Analysis of observation 2
- There is no explanation in the judgment why should the petitioner be expected to inform about his daughter having applied for the post of MTS at the Rashtrapati Bhawan as a part of the petition.
- The RTI Act does not require an individual to give reasons for seeking the information. It is a basic tenet of the law that nobody can ask an applicant why the information is being sought. Section 6 (2) of the RTI Act reads, “An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him”.
- It is not understood how the High Court could come to the conclusion that the alleged deed of the applicant not informing the High Court about his daughter having applied for the MTS job was a cleverly act. The use of the adjective ‘cleverly; preceding ‘quiet’ appears surprising and inappropriate.
- The High Court has not given any reasons for the observation that “seeking of the above information, especially after the Petitioner's daughter did not obtain employment, clearly points to some ulterior motives”. It appears that the Court has committed a gross error in arriving at this conclusion.
Analysis of observation 3
The Court has noted in Para 10 of the order that investigation has been completed in respect of 10 candidates, who were found to have obtained jobs on the basis of fake certificates, and their appointments have been terminated. This shows public interest in seeking information.
It is not evident why the Court has preferred to penalise the petitioner and even in the corrigendum, the costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the petitioner has not been withdrawn.
Current status of the case
An appeal, being LPA No.90/2021 titled Har Kishan v. President Secretariat against the orders passed by this Court dated 12th January, 2021 and 29th January, 2021 has been filed.
Ordered to be listed on 29th July, 2021.
As Shailesh Gandhi, former Information Commissioner wrote, “One of the best transparency laws was promulgated by Parliament but is now threatened by judicial interpretations which are not in consonance with the law. If they interpret the RTI Act giving more importance to exemptions and widening its scope, this great law may become “Right to Denial of Information”. This would be a sad regression for democracy.
For a copy of the order, please refer to the link below:-
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2021/CIC/1497
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission