Important Decision and Judgements
1: Reserve bank of india cannot refuse information under the right to information act, claiming fiduciary relationship
Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry [Civil Appeal No. 91 OF 2015]The Reserve Bank of India is the sole controller of the banking affairs in the country. Along with discharging supervisory functions over the various banks in the country, it is responsible for maintaining accounts of the central and state governments. Section 35 of the Banking Regulations Act,1949, empowers RBI to inspect the banks and it may publish the information thus obtained, in a consolidated form in the public interest, u/s 28 of the same Act. However, as per Section 45E of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, such information pertaining to the credit details is deemed to be confidential, and no court, tribunal, or authority can compel RBI to furnish the same; and Sections 8(1)(a), (d), (e) and 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandate the disclosure of this information.
The Apex Court observed that the information obtained from the banks by RBI was not under trust and in confidence. Hence, both of them do not act in furtherance of each other’s interests. Since the latter has no legal obligation to maximize the profits of any bank– either public or private sector, the question of the existence of any kind of fiduciary relationship does not arise. On the other hand, RBI is legally obligated to act in the public interest, and hence it is bound to act transparently and furnish the information sought under RTI Act.
2: Rti cannot be denied citing that information sought is irrelevant
Adesh Kumar v Union of India [Delhi HC; W.P.(C) 3543/2014]A First Information Report was lodged against the Petitioner, followed by a Charge sheet while he was in service. He had applied for information relating to sanction of prosecution against him, which was subsequently denied by the Central Public Information Officer, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that there existed no obligation to make available the said information. The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, seeking an appropriate remedy, aggrieved by the CPIO’s refusal to furnish the said information. The Delhi High Court rejected the Petitioner’s plea on the ground that the information sought, if furnished, would impede the investigation/ apprehension/ prosecution of offenders. Furthermore, it also observed that simply stating exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act does not absolve the authority from discharging its functions. Whether the information sought is relevant or not is not germane in the context of the RTI Act.
3: Can particulars of fir be disclosedunder rti act?
Jiju Lukose v State of Kerala [Kerala High Court, WP(C). NO. 1240 OF 2015]A First Information Report was filed against the Petitioner u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Petitioner received a copy of the same only after two months, and till then, the Petitioner and his family members were in the dark about the gravity of the charges levied. A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Kerala High Court, seeking a direction to make copies of the FIR available to the accused immediately after the registration, and the same must be uploaded on the police station’s website to make it accessible to one and all.
The Central Information Commission observed that even if the FIR is a public document, if it is registered under provisions mentioned u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act, it shall not be disclosed to citizens at large till the completion of the investigation. However, the accused can claim it as a matter of right according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4: Pension payment cannot be denied for want of aadhaar card
NN Dhumane v PIO, Department of Posts [CIC/POSTS/A/2017/185367]The Appellant’s pension was withheld for want of a copy of her Aadhar Card, and she was directed to submit the same by the account branch. In an RTI inquiry filed by her, she sought a copy of the order by which the Aadhaar card is required/necessary for pension payment and names of the persons whose pension was held up for want of the Aadhaar card in the said year. The Central Public Information Officer informed her that there was no pension held up, only a mere delay in the deposition of the same. The CIC in the said case condemned the act of the Postal Department for denial of payment of pension for want of Aadhar Card and that it is a matter of life and liberty under RTI Act, which shall be disposed of within 48 hours.
5: Ministers, not public authoritiesunder rti
Union of India & Anr. v Central Information Commission & Anr. [Delhi HC, W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2006]The Central Information Commission’s order declaring the Ministers, Union, and State governments as Public Authorities u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The HC, while quashing the said order, observed that the CIC was not a competent authority to decide on the question since it was beyond its scope in the circumstances and facts of the case.
6: UPSC MARKS CANNOT BE MECHANICALLY DISCLOSED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Union Public Service Commission & Ors. v Angesh Kumar & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s).6159-6162 OF 2013]The Respondents, in this case, were unsuccessful in their attempt to clear the Preliminary Civil Services Examinations, held in 2010, and approached the High Court seeking a direction to the UPSC to disclose the details of the ‘raw’ and ‘scaled’ marks awarded, details of subject wise cut off marks, model answers, scaling methodology and complete results of all candidates. Upon carefully weighing the need for transparency and accountability, along with ensuring the optimum utilization of finances and the sensitive nature of the information sought, the Supreme Court of India opined that the information of the raw and scaled marks sought for by the respondents could not be furnished mechanically as it could potentially go against the public interest. However, it made explicitly clear that in cases wherein public interest requires furnishing such information, such a practice can be enforced.
7: STATUTORY EXAMINING BODIES ARE BOUND TO FURNISH COPIES OF EVALUATED ANSWERBOOKS
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011]The Respondent student appeared for the board examinations conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in 2008 and was not satisfied with the marks received. He contended that his answer books weren’t properly evaluated, which resulted in him scoring low. An application for the revaluation of the answer sheets was made to the CBSE, which was rejected by the latter stating that the information sought was confidential under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since it maintained a fiduciary relationship with its evaluators. Also, its examination by-laws state that no examinee is entitled to the inspection or revaluation of his/her answer books and that the disclosure of the same would be against the public interest. Furthermore, CBSE cited that the Central Information Commission in an earlier order had ruled out the disclosure of such information.
Aggrieved by the said response, the respondent moved the Calcutta High Court seeking a direction to CBSE to furnish the said copies of the answer books and appoint an independent evaluator to re-check the same to award fresh marks.
The High Court held that the evaluated answer-books of an examinee writing a public examination conducted by statutory bodies like CBSE or any University or Board of Secondary Education, being a ‘document, manuscript record, and opinion’ fell within the definition of “information” as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act and opined that the provisions of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner which would lead towards dissemination of information rather than withholding the same; and in view of the right to information, the examining bodies were bound to provide inspection of evaluated answer books to the examinees.
In an appeal made before the Apex Court, wherein CBSE challenged the said ruling of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that even if an examining body claims to be in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee, information sought can be furnished to the latter, since there is no third person involved, and the RTI Act prohibits disclosure of information in the fiduciary relationship only to third parties and affirmed the Calcutta High Court’s judgment.
8: NO RTI QUERIES LIE WITH REGARD TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Registrar, Supreme Court of India v RS Misra [WP (c) 3530/2011]The respondent was removed from the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry) in 2003. He challenged his dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. The petition in the High Court, along with the appeal, review before the Supreme Court failed too. As a result, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, seeking reasons for the dismissal of his petitions. On not receiving the said information, the applicant approached the CIC, which further directed the registrar of the Apex Court to answer the query.
The Delhi High Court, while setting aside the CIC’s order, held that the Right to Information would not override the Supreme Court Rules, with regard to the judicial functioning of the courts, since the legislature is incompetent so as to take away the judicial powers of courts by statutory prohibition.
9: 2 YEARS WAIT FOR A RESPONSE UNDER RTI- A BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE ACT
Aabid Husain v Central Public Information Officer, Jabalpur [CIC/DCABO/A/2016/271739/IARMY/SD]Strongly disregarding the tardiness in filing the appropriate responses to the RTI queries, the Central Information Commission regarded the Act of the CPIOs of Cantonment Board, Jabalpur for their ignorance about the pending RTI Applications from the tenure of their preceding officers. Terming it to be a blatant violation of the Right to Information Act, the Commission observed that it is incumbent upon the present CPIO to deal with all such pending RTI Applications and not wait for the Commission to issue a notice of hearing to provide a reply to RTI Applicants.
10: BAR COUNCILS LIABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Harinder Dhingra v Bar Association Rewari, Panchkula, Faridabad, Gurgaon [CIC/SA/A/2015/001262]In the said case, the Appellant had sought a response regarding the number of advocates who had violated the provisions of the Advocates Act, instances of complaints against advocates, among other such details. The Central Information Commission held that since Bar Councils were statutory bodies constitutes under the Advocate’s Act promote ethical behavior among lawyers and prevent any forms of misconduct; any information sought regarding their functioning cannot be denied to the applicant under the Right to Information Act.
11: INCOME TAX RETURNS ARE ‘PERSONAL INFORMATION, HENCE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Girish Ramachandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012]The Petitioner, in this case, had filed a query under RTI, seeking information regarding the memos, show cause notices, punishments, details of investments in various financial institutions and banks, along with gifts bestowed to the family members during the tenure of service of one of the Respondents, who happened to be a government employee.
The primary question before the Supreme Court was, whether the assets, liabilities, details of movable and immovable property owned by a government servant, which could be gathered by accessing the Income tax returns filed from time to time, qualified to be ‘personal information’ u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
After due deliberation, the Apex Court observed that copies of all such memos, show cause notices and orders of punishment, income tax returns, details of gifts received, etc. by a public servant qualify as personal information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, and hence exempted, unless the disclosure of such information affects the public interest at large.
12: ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO BE MANDATORILY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS
Public Information Officer v V Chaudhary [W.P.(C) 2025/2014 & CM No 4213/2014]An order of the Central Information Commission, which ordered the Public Information Officer to furnish information regarding certain illegal construction work being carried out in the city of New Delhi, who had initially refused to provide the same, citing that information sought could not be disclosed, as it fell into the category of ‘confidential information’ u/s 11 of the Act, which was challenged by the PIO, before the Delhi High Court.
The HC held that while Section 11 prohibits the disclosure of information to third parties, it cannot be used as a pretext to deny relevant information and that all information available with the public authority is mandatorily required to be provided to each and every citizen unless it falls under the exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
13: JUDICIAL RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS COME UNDER PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Shri YN Prasad v Public Information Officer, Ahalmad Evening Court [CIC/DSESJ/A/2016/305423]The Petitioner in the said case had requested copies of various judicial records of cases Viz. Summons, written statements filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, which he was not a party to.
Upon a detailed perusal of the matter, the Central Information Commission opined and held that Judicial proceedings and records came under the definition of ‘public records’ under the RTI Act and hence, the public information officer’s refusal to furnish the same would be against the public interest at large.
14: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA IS SUBJECT TO RTI ACT
Central PIO, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal [W.P. (C) 288/2009]A 1997 resolution of the Supreme Court mandated the Supreme Court judges to disclose their assets and liabilities before the Chief Justice of India. The respondent, an activist, sought a copy of the said resolution and the details of assets and liabilities of the chief justices of various high courts in the country, which the Central PIO denied. Upon an appeal before the CIC, the Commission held that the office of the CJI was a public office and hence fell under the purview of the RTI Act.
The said order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, which held that the CJI holds the said information, not in a personal fiduciary capacity, but by virtue of his position as the CJI- which is a public office; consequently, the details furnished by the judges are entitled to be treated as personal information and can be accessed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act
15: INFORMATION CANNOT BE DENIED CITING LACK OF AADHAR CARD
Vishwas Bhamburkar v PIO, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. [CIC/HUDCO/C/2018/103140]The Petitioner had sought information from the Public Information Officer, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd (HUDCO), and was asked to submit his identity proof to ascertain whether the said information would be useful to him personally or socially.
Dissatisfied with the said response, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission, wherein it was held that RTI Act nowhere mandated any such procedure for forwarding identity proofs to the PIO to ascertain whether the information sought is useful to the applicant in any manner or not.
16: INFORMATION CANNOT BE DENIED CITING THAT THE FILE IS MISSING
i. Shahzad Singh v Department of Posts [CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355]The Appellant in the said case had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking copies of replies received for the post of Senior Hindi Translators. The Central Public Information Officer handling the case informed the Appellant that the information sought by him could not be made available to him since the concerned files appeared to be ‘missing’.
The Central Information Commission observed that such frequent references of ‘missing files’ in many responses to the RTI query filed posed a threat to the legislation’s transparency and accountability. It held that the claim of files being untraceable bound the departments to furnish the requested information since the documents had been in their possession at one point in time.
The Appellant in the said case had sought information relating to the division of his land and the status of obtaining an alternative land, from the Public Information Officer at the Delhi SDM office and was not satisfied with the incomplete information thus received.
The Central Information Commission observed that the excuse of missing files by the public authority directly points at the inefficiency in the management of the documents and records by the public authorities, compromising the provisions of the Right to Information Act in itself.
The respondent applicant had sought authenticated Xerox copies of the project reports of an Ayurvedic resort in Kerala from the Public Information Officer, Ministry of Tourism in Kerala. It was stated by the PIO that the information record sought was not traceable in the state archives.
While observing that the Right to Information is progressive legislation, aiming at universal access to information by every citizen, the Delhi High Court opined that in cases where the lost records cannot be found in spite of the best efforts made in that direction, it is the duty of the concerned department to take responsibility for the loss of the same, and take appropriate action against the officers involved.
17: ELECTION CANDIDATES TO MANDATORILY DISCLOSE ASSETS, EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, AND CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS IN THEIR NOMINATION
Union of India v Association of Democratic Reforms [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 515 of 2002]With a view to magnifying the extent and scope of the citizen’s right to be informed about their elected representatives so that they make informed choices while exercising their right to vote, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to information primarily stemmed from the right to freedom of speech and expression and that every citizen is entitled to be informed of the criminal antecedents of candidates running for holding public offices.
The Apex Court directed the Election Commission of India to secure such affidavits from the candidates bearing all such particulars, with special focus upon the candidates’ criminal history, containing details of the crimes charged with, nature of offenses acquittal or conviction of charges, punishment served, etc.
Since this judgment, the public disclosure of such details has been mandated by several provisions of the People’s Representation Act, 1951.
18: POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULD DISCLOSE DETAILS OF THEIR ACCOUNTS & SOURCES OF FUNDING
Subhash Chandra Agarwal v Indian National Congress & Ors. [CIC/SM/C/2011/000838]The Central Information Commission, in a landmark verdict, directed as many as six major political parties like the Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, Communist Party of India & Communist Party of India (Marxist), Bahujan Samaj Party, and the Indian National Congress to furnish details of their accounts and funding, along with the promises made in their election manifesto and the number of promises fulfilled till date, stating that they came under the definition of ‘public authorities’ under the RTI Act and directed each of these parties to constitute Public Information Officers who would convey the information sought, within a specified time frame.
19: WHETHER INFORMATION CAN BE SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE RTI ACT?
CIC v State of Manipur [CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10787-10788 OF 2011]The Appellant-Applicant had sought information from the State Information Officer regarding the magisterial enquiries initiated by the Government of Manipur between 1980-2006, under section 6 of the RTI Act; which was met with no response and led to the Appellant filing a complaint before the Chief Information Commissioner under section 18 of the Act. A similar query was filed, seeking the same information for the period of 1980 to March 2007, which was again met with no response and led to the filing of another complaint before the CIC. In two separate orders, the Chief Information Commissioner directed the State PIO to furnish the information sought in both the queries within a specified time, both of which were challenged by the respondents by a Writ Petition.
A Division bench of the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner was not empowered to pass an order directing the disclosure of information under Section 18 and that the only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20, after ensuring that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. The Supreme Court directed the appellants to furnish appeals under Section 19 of the Act since it lays down a procedural safeguard by imposing an obligation on the PIO for the denial of any information, which is not available u/s 18.
20: RIGHT TO INFORMATION EMANATES FROM THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
i. The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain & Ors. [AIR 1975 SC 865]The Supreme Court held that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, which is not absolute, is a factor that should make one aware and informed. It held that covering common routine business with a veil of secrecy would be against the public interest. Hence, the people of this country are entitled to know the particulars of public transactions in their entirety.
ii. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 161]The Apex Court observed that the right to acquire information and disseminate it is an intrinsic component of freedom of speech and expression.
iii. S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. President of India and Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 149]A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court opined that the concept of an open government emanates directly from the right to know, which seems to be implicit in the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the disclosure of any information with regard to the functioning of the Government must be the rule and secrecy, an exception justified only in cases where public interest demands it. The judiciary must aim to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible, in consistency with the public interest, bearing in mind the situations wherein the disclosure serves an important aspect of public interest.
iv. People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2004) 2 SCC 476]The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the right to information is a facet of the right to freedom of “speech and expression” as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and that right to information is a fundamental right. In coming to this conclusion, the Court traced the origin of the said right from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and also Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by India in 1978. It referred to a similar enunciation of principle in the Declaration of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, 1950, and found that the spirit of the Universal Declaration of 1948 is echoed in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
21: RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. & others [(1988) 4 SCC 592]The Apex Court recognized that the Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.