Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

In many instances, the RTI applicants have complained of a soft approach by the Information Commission - whether of State or Centre - towards the Public Information Officers (PIOs). While describing the section 7 relating to providing information free of cost in cases of delay, the High Court used very tough words against the Information Commissioner.

Brief facts of the case

1.      Mr Neeraj Nigam filed an application under the RTI Act on 26.03.2019 which was received on 26.03.2019. He contended that despite the requirement of law to furnish information within a period of thirty days, Public Information Officer (PIO) had not discharged his duties and, therefore, the information should have been provided to him free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2.      The WP No. 10768/2021 was disposed by the High Court on 12.09.2023, remitting the matter to the Chief Information Commissioner of the State Information Commission to pass orders afresh. The contention that the RTI application was required to be made to the Directorate of Animal Husbandry but it was sent to the Directorate of Pashu Palan, was rejected by the High Court, recording a finding of fact that the two departments are known as Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Directorate of Pashu Palan in English and Hindi and there is no difference between these two.

3.      The order of the State Information Commission dated 17.10.2023 was challenged before the High Court.

Arguments by the Respondent

1.      Respondent submitted that though the RTI application was filed on 26.03.2019, but it was put up before the PIO on 27.03.2019, who wrote a letter dated 18.04.2019 to the RTI applicant asking him to deposit a sum of Rs.2,12,664/- and the said letter was dispatched on 26.04.2019.

2.      Further, since the period from the date of dispatch of letter and the period within which payment is to be made is excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred as per Section 7(3) of RTI Act, the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner is just and correct.

Findings of the High Court

1.      Information is to be provided within thirty days of the receipt of the request as per Section 7 of the RTI Act and not within thirty days of receipt of placing of the request on the table of the PIO.

2.      As per Section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act, only that period is required to be excluded when a demand is made to pay the fees and till that fees is paid. When demand itself is put in dispatch after thirty days, it will not empower the authorities to prevent invocation of Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

3.      A careful perusal of the order reveals that the Chief Information Commissioner abdicated its statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government in not examining the facts of the case in minute details. Even if 26th March day is excluded, the day on which application was made applying the principles contained in the General Clauses Act, then also thirty days period came to an end on 25.04.2019. Therefore, dispatch of a letter on 26.04.2019 as is admitted by producing a photocopy of dispatch register will not help the respondents in overcoming the requirements of Section 7(6). Therefore, the Chief Information Commissioner's order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4.      Setting aside the order of the Information Commission, the High court directed the PIO to supply desired information within a period of fifteen days to the petitioner free of cost.

5.      The respondent submitted that copy of the application was received on 27.03.2019 by the PIO but referring to the application available on record bearing the seal of the department showing clear date of 26.03.2019, the Court observed that, “…this submission being contrary to the record, puts the state in a shameful position that they are not even able to read the documents correctly and advance correct proposition of fact in front of the Courts.”

6.      For non-application of mind on the part of the Chief Information Commissioner and forcing Mr Neeraj Nigam to a long drawn litigation, a cost of litigation which is quantified at Rs. 40,000/- was imposed and to be paid to the petitioner within thirty days.

7.      The Court ordered the cost to be recovered from the delinquent officers. 

Citation: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Neeraj Nigam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; WP No. 29100 of 2023; Dated March 05, 2025.