Seeking interpretation of section 428 of the CrPC under RTI
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information related to detention such as, against which detention will be set-off if the accused is punished with death for the same case; is this non set-off not a Double Jeopardy; is this non set-off not a violation of Fundamental Right Guaranteed by Article 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the Constitution of India and what relief can the accused take. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the information sought points relates to interpretation of law which amounts to tendering legal opinion on the provision available under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. He denied the information stating that tendering opinion is not covered in the ambit of definition of information as defined under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the respondent can only provide information as is readily held by them and they are not obliged to provide any opinion under the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Anshu Kumar v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000235
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/853
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission