Right to information access to tribunal orders and case records cannot be denied merely for lack of stated public interest.

Information relating to the functioning of a public authority, including orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, reserved-but-unpronounced cases, despatch registers and cause lists, was treated as disclosable under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Denial on the ground that the requester had not shown public interest was found unjustified where no specific exemption was established. The requested orders and case-management records were directed to be furnished, and the cause lists were to be made available for inspection. A centralized, publicly accessible record of such case-related information was also advised to facilitate scrutiny.

---

---

Issues: Whether inspection of all orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange could be denied on the ground that the applicant had not shown public interest; whether inspection of the despatch registers, reserved-and-unpronounced cases, and cause lists should be furnished; and whether the public authority should maintain centralized records for public scrutiny.

Issue (i): Whether inspection of all orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange could be denied on the ground that the applicant had not shown public interest.

Analysis: Orders of a legally constituted authority are part of information ordinarily available in the public domain. Denial of access on the supposed ground that the applicant had not stated public interest was held to be unjustified. The refusal was found to be inconsistent with the obligations of the public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Conclusion: Disclosure of the orders was directed, and the denial was held to be unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether inspection of the list of cases reserved but not yet pronounced, and the cause lists, should be furnished.

Analysis: Information concerning hearings, reservation of orders, pronouncement of orders, and related cause lists was treated as part of the essential functioning of the public authority. The absence of any valid ground to withhold such information led to the conclusion that it should be centrally maintained and made available for inspection.

Conclusion: The information was directed to be furnished and the cause lists were directed to be made available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that access to the requested records and lists was ordered, and the public authority was additionally advised to maintain a centralized, publicly accessible record of case-related information.

Ratio Decidendi: Information concerning the functioning and records of a public authority, including its orders and case-management details, cannot be withheld on the vague ground that the requester has not shown public interest when no specific exemption is established.

---