2007 (12) TMI 412 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes order for immediate info release under RTI Act, stresses access to information as a rule

BHAGAT SINGH Versus CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

BHAGAT SINGH Versus CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Partial quashing of the Central Information Commission's (CIC) order.2. Direction for immediate supply of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.4. Compliance with CIC's order and imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Partial Quashing of the CIC's Order:The petitioner sought partial quashing of the CIC's order dated 8th May, 2006, which directed disclosure of information only after the completion of the investigation and tax recovery. The court noted that the CIC's order was facially supporting the petitioner's contention that the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was untenable. The court found it illogical to withhold information until the entire process of investigation and recovery was complete, especially since recovery in tax matters is time-consuming. The court set aside the CIC's condition of withholding information until tax recovery orders were made.2. Direction for Immediate Supply of Information:The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to supply the information sought immediately. The court directed the second and third respondents to release the information based on the materials available and collected with them within two weeks. The court emphasized that access to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is the rule, and exemptions under Section 8 are exceptions that must be strictly construed.3. Applicability of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act:The second respondent initially rejected the petitioner's RTI application under Section 8(1)(j), stating that the information sought was personal and did not further public interest. The appellate authority also rejected the application, citing Section 8(1)(h), which exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders. The court observed that the orders of the respondents did not reflect any reasons why the investigation process would be hampered by the disclosure of information. The court held that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of information and that the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons for how the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.4. Compliance with CIC's Order and Imposition of Penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act:The petitioner filed a contempt petition before the CIC for non-compliance with its order and sought penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The court took serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information and the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. However, the court found that the petitioner could not demonstrate mala fide denial of information by the respondents. Therefore, the court did not issue a direction to the CIC to initiate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.Conclusion:The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the second and third respondents to release the information sought within two weeks. The court set aside the CIC's condition of withholding information until tax recovery orders were made but did not order penalties or costs due to the lack of demonstrated mala fide intent by the respondents.