A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Information was not provided by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf and FAA’s order was also not complied; PIO abstained from hearing - CIC issued a SCN to the present PIO and the then PIO for imposing penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Disclosure of the reasons by an applicant for filing the RTI application

24 Sep, 2014

The recent decision of the Madras High Court giving relief to its own registry while holding that applicant seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 must give reasons for seeking information has generated a lot of heat and dust. The judgment has been criticised for not making cognizance of the fact that the section 6(2) of the RTI Act specifically says “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 apparent that the bench of Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice K Ravichandrabaabu have committed a blunder by missing this section and giving a verdict. Whether the view taken by the bench indicates an inherent bias of the establishment against transparency would remain a question in the minds of the citizens just as the Madras High Court has suo-motu (?) reviewed the judgment.

An analysis of the facts and judgment is given below:-

Background

B.Bharathi, a native of Puducherry, filed several applications under the RTI Act to the Madras High Court, seeking information on various aspects. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Registrar (Administration), of the Madras High Court to furnish the information as sought by Bharathi in respect of six RTI applications. The queries at (i) and (v) relate to the complaint made by the second respondent against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Queries (ii) and (iii) relate to the selection and appointment of Registrar General of High Court.

(i) Details of action taken on his complaint, dated 1.6.2011 against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the details of enquiry conducted thereon;

(ii) Details of recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General of High Court, details of constitution of Selection Committee, recommendation made by individual Judges and other information regarding the selection of various individuals as Registrar Generals;

(iii) Details of action taken on earlier application, dated 31.10.2011 regarding the appointment and selection of Registrar General;

(iv) Copies of several petitions/appeals filed by B.Bharathi and also the file notings made therein;

(v) Copy of earlier complaint, dated 10.12.2011 filed by the B.Bharathi against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the action taken thereon;

(vi) Information as to what action taken regarding the complaint filed by B.Bharathi, dated 20.9.2011 against inclusion of one Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 and the file notings thereon.

The PIO submitted that a reply was given to Bharathi informing him regarding query at:

(i) Inspection of files was offered to Bharathi which he did on 1.2.2012, while in parallel proceedings, his appeal was dismissed by the FAA on 6.11.2012.

(v) Bharathi was informed that his complaint, dated 10.12.2011 has been closed.

(ii) Bharathi’s request was rejected by the PIO on the ground that earlier petition on similar lines, was rejected under Section 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. However, the FAA directed disclosure and Bharathi was informed that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General and that there is no Selection Committee.

(iii) required information has been provided as in (ii) above.

(iv) the copies of the complaints must be available with Bharathi as they were made by Bharathi.

(vi) as the matter is subjudice and pending before the High Court, the request has been put up along with the case bundles in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2012.

View of CIC

The matter came up before the Central Information Commission (CIC) in appeal which held as under:

1. Regarding the six appeals, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the attested photocopies of the relevant documents including the file notings wherever available and any correspondence made. The CIC ordered to provide the photocopy of the file notings, if any, from the file in which:

· the proposal for appointment of the Registrar General had been processed and finalised.

· Bharathi’s complaint against the appointment of the Registrar General was dealt with.

2. In respect of the appointment of Public Prosecutors since 2006, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the letters containing the concurrence or otherwise of the High Court about specific individuals proposed by the State Government.

3. The PIO was directed to prepare a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the Bharathi to indicate with the particulars about the current status of the action taken in those complaints.

4. The CIC also expressed a word of caution on the action of the Bharathi that the disclosure of information must be commensurate and in conformity with the smooth functioning of the public authorities and this particular case shows how a single individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources rather disproportionately while seeking information. Sending numerous complaints and representations and then following those with the RTI applications, cannot be the way to redress such grievances.

The CIC disposed of six Second Appeals and postponed the proceedings in respect of other 47 complaints for receiving the statement from the PIO.

The PIO filed a writ petition before the High Court submitting that:

· The information wherever available and permissible, had been provided to Bharathi

· The attitude of Bharathi seems to be to derail the administration by misusing the RTI Act provisions and brings it to embarrassment and ridicule.

· The State Information Commission, by order dated 2.6.2012 in Order No.20854/A/2012, had also passed strictures in another proceedings against the offensive intimidatory act of Bharathi.

· The selection to the post of Registrar General is a sensitive post in the administrative set up of the High Court and is not a matter to be discussed in public domain. The post is essentially one of trust reposed by the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court on a particular individual and such selection by the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court is vested under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be made the subject of public discussion. Any further disclosure of information on that issue is thoroughly unnecessary and unwarranted with no element of public interest. Non-furnishing of such information is protected by Section 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 view of the Madras High Court

1. The word "right" is not defined under the RTI Act. In the absence of any definition of "right", it has to be understood to mean that such "right" must have a legal basis. Therefore, the "right" must be coupled with an object or purpose to be achieved. Such object and purpose must, undoubtedly, have a legal basis or be legally sustainable and enforceable. It cannot be construed that a request or query made 'simpliciter', will fall under the definition of "right to information". The "right" must emanate from legally sustainable claim. There is a difference between the "right to information" and the "right to seek information". It is like the "right to property" and the "right to claim property". In the former, such right is already accrued and vested with the seeker, whereas, in the latter, it is yet to accrue or get vested. Likewise, a person who seeks information under the RTI Act, must show that the information sought for is either for his personal interest or for a public interest. Under both circumstances, the information seeker must disclose atleast with bare minimum details as to what is the personal interest or the public interest, for which such information is sought for. If such details are either absent or not disclosed, such query cannot be construed as the one satisfying the requirement of the RTI Act. The restrictions imposed under the RTI Act, though are in respect of providing certain informations, certainly, there are certain inbuilt restrictions imposed on the applicant as well.

2. Section 3 of the RTI Act contemplates that all citizens shall have the "right to information". At the same time, when such "right to information" is not an unfettered right and on the other hand, is subject to reasonable restriction, it has to be held that such right cannot be sought to be enforced as a matter of routine or as a matter of course, without disclosing as to whether such right is being exercised to get an information to achieve a legally enforceable or achievable object. In other words, prima-facie, an applicant must disclose the object for which such an information is sought for and also satisfy that such object has a legal backing. If informations are to be furnished to a person, who does not have any reason or object behind seeking such informations, in our considered view, the intention of the Legislature is not to the effect that such informations are to be given like pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking such information. We should not be mistaken as if we are saying something against the intention of the Legislature. What we want to emphasise is that a Legislation, more particularly, the one on hand, must achieve the object, viz., concrete and effective functioning of the public authority with transparency and accountability by providing the information which are under the control of such public authorities. If the "right" provided under the RTI Act is misused, either as an intimidation or as a threat against the effective functioning of the public authorities, or such conduct would deviate the administration from its effective functioning, the Courts will always weigh the balance and lift the veil to find out as to whether the applicant has sought the information with bona-fide intention and as to whether such information has any relevance for his request. It is needless to say that while the "use" is to be encouraged, the "misuse" has to be curtailed and nibbed at the bud.

3. Regarding queries (i) and (v), Bharathi cannot have any grievance, as the PIO has permitted him to peruse the files regarding the action taken and also informed him of the fact that his complaint had been ordered to be closed. However, Bharathi contends that the file notings and other minutes sought for in his complaint were not furnished. Such information cannot be furnished to the second respondent, as held by this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134.

4. Regarding queries (ii) and (iii), Bharathi cannot compel the PIO to furnish the information being not available. Even otherwise, as already observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango), furnishing of those information with regard to the Registrar General which has been done by the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court, cannot be brought under the purview of Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; of the RTI Act, as, such information pertain to the internal intricate functioning/administration of the High Court and such information has no relationship with any public activity or interest. As observed by the Division Bench therein, certainly, furnishing of those information will hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the institution, unnecessarily warranting scrupulous litigations.

5. A perusal of the pleadings made by Bharathi as well as the counter affidavit filed in this Writ Petitionwould show that he has not disclosed even the basic reason for seeking those informations.

6. Bharathi has no locus-standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as he has no enforceable legal right. Further, posting a Senior District Judge as Registrar General by the Honourable Chief Justice is in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and Bharathi or any other person including other Judges, has no say in the said matter. The said issue is already settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1998 (3) SCC 72 (High Court Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal) and in paragraph 38, the Honourable Supreme Court held that under the Constitutional Scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and other Judges, so far as officers and servants of the High Court are concerned, have no role to play on the administrative side. The said position is reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 (1) MLJ 289 (SC) (Registrar General Vs. R.Perachi).

7. Regarding query (iv), they not the information available within the knowledge of the PIO; on the other hand they are the documents of Bharathi himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. These documents cannot be brought under the definition "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.

8. Regarding (vi), the matter is sub-judice and pending before the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010. Therefore, Bharathi is not entitled to get any information with regard to the proceedings pending before the Court of Law and if at all he wants any document relating to the pending case/cases, he has to only apply for certified copy and obtain the same in terms of the Rules framed by the High Court. Since the complaint of Bharathi regarding the action taken against inclusion of Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 has been put up along with the case bundle, which is pending before Court, the PIO is precluded from furnishing any information.

Judgment of the Madras High Court

1. Information in respect of the six appeals by way of attested file copies of the relevant documents including the file notings and the correspondences made thereon is denied. The impugned order of the first respondent-Commission in directing the petitioner to furnish those information, is erroneous and not sustainable.

2. Regarding the other 47 complaints wherein the CIC passed an order directing the PIO to prepare a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from Bharathi, we are not in a position to understand as to what are those 47 complaints or applications made by Bharathi and what are the informations that are sought for in those queries. In the absence of material details, we are not in a position to appreciate the order passed by the CIC directing the petitioner to prepare a tabular statement listing all the complaints and the representations received from the second respondent being dealt with on the administrative and judicial sides of this Court and the current status of the action taken thereon. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order of the CIC is bereft of any material particulars insofar as those 47 RTI applications referred to in the impugned order and the direction issued to the petitioner in that regard is also not sustainable.

Citation: The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras Vs. CIC and Mr.B.Bharathi in W.P.No.26781 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

Cases relied upon:

Madras High Court

1. 2013 (5) MLJ 134 (Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs. K.Elango),

2. 2013 (5) MLJ 385 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. A.Kanagaraj),

3. 2013 (5) MLJ 513 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. R.M.Subramanian)

4. 2013 (5) MLJ 694 (Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs.K.U.Rajasekar).

Supreme Court

1. G.R.Deshpande Vs. CIC Link-http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf

2. CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay Link- http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/supremecourt1-459

3. Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi Link- http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf

4. Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer Link- http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/supremecourt4-463

Amidst criticism, the bench suo-motu took up the matter and passed orders on September 23, saying that in the September 17 order, “we have made certain general observations in paragraphs 20 and 21 stating that the RTI application should contain bare minimum details or reasons for which the information is sought for. However, the said general observations were made without noticing Sec. 6(2) of the RTI Act.”

Referring to section 6(2), the bench said that an applicant is not required to give any reason for making the request. “Hence, the general observations made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said order is an error apparent on the fact of the record, contrary to the statutory provisions. The said error has been noticed by us after pronouncing the order dated September 17 and in order to rectify the said error..., we directed the Registry yesterday (September 22) to post this matter today under the caption suo-motu review.’’

The net outcome of the review is that the general observations made in the order dated September 17 which said that an applicant is supposed to provide reasons for filing an application under the RTI Act (and is against the existing provisions of the RTI Act) do not remain in force.

Disclosure of the reasons by an applicant for filing the RTI application

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.