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

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

Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed

Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing

Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified

What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website

Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

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

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

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

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

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

26 Aug, 2024

In a significant decision, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of CPIO, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission v. A.K. Jain (W.P.(C) 3032/2016, dated July 26, 2024) provided clarity on the rights of third parties under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005, vis-à-vis the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The judgment is a pivotal read for legal practitioners, RTI activists, and public information officers alike.

Below, we explore the salient features and main issues addressed in this judgment:

Background of the case

1. Mr AK Jain (RTI applicant) filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2014 before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, requesting copies of Rameshwar Prasad Srivastava v. Dwarkadhis Project Ltd., along with all interlocutory applications and the written statement filed in the case.

2. Vide letter dated 31.12.2014, the PIO declined to provide the requested documents relying on Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 and stated that only parties involved in the matter were entitled to the documents, judgments, or orders related to the case.

3. Subsequently, the first appeal filed by the RTI applicant before the First Appellate Authority was rejected through an order dated 06.02.2015 against which he filed the second appeal before the CIC.

4. The CIC order directing the PIO to provide the information vide order dated 09.11.2015 was challenged before the High Court.

Main issues addressed by the High Court:

1. Conflict between Consumer Protection Regulations and the RTI Act:

The primary legal issue was whether the Consumer Protection Regulations could restrict a third party's access to information despite the RTI Act's broader provisions. The court found that the RTI Act's objectives of transparency and accountability must prevail.

2. Scope of Third-Party Rights in Accessing Information:

The court addressed how third parties can access judicial and quasi-judicial records, which are often restricted to protect privacy and the integrity of proceedings. It established a framework that third parties must follow to access such information.

3. Interpretation of Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005:

Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, which restricts document access to parties involved in a case, does not explicitly forbid third-party access. The court noted that absence of prohibition should not be construed as denial.

4. Balancing Privacy with Public Interest:

The court highlighted the need to balance privacy concerns with the public interest. It stipulated that while third parties could access information, they must demonstrate a valid reason, aligning with both privacy protections and the transparency goals of the RTI Act.

5. Procedural Directions for Information Access:

The court set out a procedural guideline requiring third parties to submit a detailed affidavit justifying their request for information. This process aims to filter out frivolous requests and safeguard sensitive information, ensuring that disclosures are made judiciously.

6. Critical Examination of Exemptions under Section 8:

The decision critically examines the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, particularly clauses related to personal information and expressly forbidden information. It ensures that exemptions are not misapplied to unjustifiably withhold information.

7. Misapplication of Exemptions to Deny Information:

The judgment criticized the incorrect application of exemptions under the RTI Act by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority, highlighting the need for careful and accurate application of the law.

Some of the observations of the Court:

Some of the important observations of the Court are reproduced below:

1. The Petitioner has referenced the judgment of Inderjeet Singh v. NCDCR & Anr. to support the argument that the documents requested by the Respondent could not be issued. It is thus imperative to contextualize this reliance within the framework established by subsequent jurisprudence. Importantly, the Inderjeet Singh case was adjudicated prior to Supreme Court’s ruling in CIC v. High Court of Gujarat, which significantly expounded on the interplay between specific court rules and Right to Information Act. Moreover, Inderjeet Singh did not address the interplay between Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act and Regulations 21 and 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the CPA Regulations. Therefore, its applicability to the present case is limited. The Supreme Court’s later decision explicitly acknowledged the possibility of concurrent mechanisms under the RTI Act and court rules, thus providing a more comprehensive framework for assessing requests for judicial documents.

2. The FAA has relied on 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; 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, which in Court’s opinion is ex-facie misconceived. 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; 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 exempts only such information which has been expressly forbidden to published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.

3. The specific term used in the section is “expressly forbidden.” However, this Court is unable to identify any explicit prohibition or declaration to this effect. Even if Regulations 21 and 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the CPA, as framed by the NCDRC, are interpreted as ‘forbidding’ the supply of documents, it is certainly not explicit. These regulations don’t prohibit or forbid dissemination of information or grant of certified copies of records. Consequently, 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; 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 cannot be invoked to deny the documents requested by the Respondent.

4. The denial of access to the requested documents was predicated merely on Applicant being a third party to the proceedings, without a substantive evaluation of the potential privacy concerns or the public interest served by disclosure. Such an approach does not conform to the legislative intent behind the RTI Act or the judicial precedents that advocate for a reasoned and balanced application of its exemptions. Given these considerations, the argument that 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. of the RTI Act justifies withholding the requested information in this instance appears insufficiently substantiated. T

5. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), as a tribunal, handles sensitive data concerning parties involved in litigation. Information pertaining to judicial proceedings inherently contains personal data, which necessitates safeguarding the privacy of litigants. Given this context, Mr. A.K. Jain’s status as a third party does not inherently entitle him to access or obtain certified copies of documents from NCDRC proceedings. His right to access is contingent upon the regulatory framework under the CPA Regulations because of the void and under the RTI Act which fills the regulatory gaps. To maintain the confidentiality and to manage the potential for overwhelming and inappropriate requests that may inundate NCDRC if a complete free unrestricted access is given to third parties, it is prudent for this Court to mandate that any third party, including Mr. Jain, submit a detailed application or affidavit when requesting information or certified copies showing good cause to receive such material.

6. The decision to disclose or withhold information should be made judiciously, considering the stipulations of Section 8 of the RTI Act, which outlines specific grounds for non-disclosure. This approach ensures that the provisions of the RTI Act are not compromised, while also respecting the confidentiality required in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

This judgment is a landmark in reinforcing the principles of the RTI Act while ensuring that the privacy and procedural proprieties of the judicial processes are maintained. It underscores the importance of the RTI Act in promoting an informed citizenry and transparent governance.

In cases where there is a conflict between the Consumer Protection Act and the RTI Act, the RTI Act is considered supreme. This supremacy is established under Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act, which clearly states that the provisions of the RTI Act will have an overriding effect over any other law that is inconsistent with its provisions. This means if there is a conflict between the information access provisions in the Consumer Protection Act and the RTI Act, the latter will prevail to ensure transparency and access to information.

For a copy of the original judgment, please go to the link - https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/214.pdf

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.