Information regarding a contempt case under RTI Act

Background

The appellant sought the copy of file noting and letters that came from or were sent to the various sister concern station/Directorate/Ministry duly signed by the Station Head in respect of contempt application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the matter was related to a case which was subjudice and no reply can be given in the interest of natural justice. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the required information if the disclosure does not violate the condition laid down under section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send the complete information to the appellant as per available records observing that section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act has not used the word sub-judice and that the PIO had completely misinterpreted the law. Under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to wait for the information and pursing the appeal.

Citation: Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar v. Prasar Bharati-All India Radio in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000513/18259