Central Information Commission Upholds Order for Information Disclosure under RTI Act

The Central Information Commission rejected the review petition filed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) seeking reconsideration of its order. The Commission found ATFE's grounds for non-disclosure of information to be unsubstantial and directed the information to be provided to the appellant as previously ordered. The Commission emphasized transparency and accountability under the RTI Act, upholding its initial decision and dismissing ATFE's attempt to avoid disclosure.

---

---

Issues involved: Review petition filed by Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) for reconsideration of Central Information Commission's order u/s RTI-application.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Review petition filed by ATFE for reconsideration of CIC's order.

The review petition was filed by ATFE seeking reconsideration of CIC's order dated 26-3-2010 in response to the RTI-application of the appellant, Shri R.K. Jain, dated 11-8-2009. The petition was filed following the permission granted by the Delhi High Court on 23-4-2010 to bring the matter before the Commission for reconsideration.

Issue 2: Grounds raised by review-petitioners for non-disclosure of information.

The review-petitioners cited poor staffing as a reason for their failure to disclose the information requested by the appellant. They claimed that the information sought included a wide range of orders and documents, making it a difficult and onerous task to collect and collate. They also highlighted the sensitivity of documents from organizations like the Enforcement Directorate, which could attract exemptions under the RTI Act.

Issue 3: Appellant's response and arguments against the review petition.

The appellant argued that the review petition was not maintainable as there was no provision in the RTI Act for wholesale review of an order already passed by the Commission. He accused ATFE of using tactics to avoid disclosure of information to hide internal irregularities. He emphasized that the ATFE's plea of insufficiency of staff was not a valid reason to avoid discharging statutory duties under the RTI Act.

Issue 4: Decision of the Central Information Commission.

The Commission found the grounds raised by ATFE for non-disclosure to be insubstantial and after-thoughts. It noted that the RTI Act does not provide for a review by the Commission unless there is a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Commission directed the information not yet disclosed to the appellant to be provided as previously ordered, rejecting the review petition.

In conclusion, the Commission upheld its decision dated 26-3-2010 and directed ATFE to disclose the information to the appellant. The Commission emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in fulfilling obligations under the RTI Act.

---