2012 (11) TMI 650 - HC - Indian Laws

Indian Army Must Disclose RTI Info, No Fiduciary Duty: Court Ruling

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus COL. VK. SHAD& OTHERS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus COL. VK. SHAD& OTHERS - TMI Issues Involved:1. Obligation to furnish information under the RTI Act.2. Interpretation of fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.3. Applicability of Army Rule 184 and DoPT instructions vis-`a-vis the RTI Act.4. Consistency in decisions by the Central Information Commission (CIC).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Obligation to furnish information under the RTI Act:The central question was whether the petitioners were obliged to provide information, including file notings and opinions of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), under the RTI Act. The court affirmed that the information sought by the respondents, such as file notings and JAG opinions, fell within the ambit of the RTI Act. It was held that the expansive definitions of 'information' and 'record' under Sections 2(f) and 2(i) of the RTI Act include opinions and file notings. Therefore, the Indian Army, being a public authority, is required to disclose such information unless it falls under the specific exemptions provided in the Act.2. Interpretation of fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act:The petitioners argued that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which protects information available in a fiduciary relationship. The court examined the concept of fiduciary relationships as discussed in the Supreme Court judgments in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhayay and ICAI vs Shaunak H. Satya. It concluded that the relationship between officers generating notes and the Army does not constitute a fiduciary relationship. The court emphasized that fiduciary relationships involve trust and confidence where one party acts for the benefit of another. In this case, the officers generating the notes or opinions do not benefit personally from the information, and thus, the information cannot be withheld under the fiduciary exemption.3. Applicability of Army Rule 184 and DoPT instructions vis-`a-vis the RTI Act:The petitioners contended that under Army Rule 184 and DoPT instructions, only certain documents should be provided. The court rejected this argument, stating that the RTI Act, with its overriding effect as per Section 22, prevails over any conflicting rules or instructions. The court clarified that the RTI Act mandates disclosure of information unless specifically exempted under its provisions. Therefore, the Army Rule and DoPT instructions cannot limit the disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.4. Consistency in decisions by the Central Information Commission (CIC):The petitioners pointed out that the CIC had taken a different stance in previous cases, such as Col. A.B. Nargolkar's case, and argued that the matter should have been referred to a larger bench. The court acknowledged the inconsistency but decided not to remand the matter back to the CIC. It reasoned that the CIC, being administered by individuals not necessarily trained in law, might not have had the benefit of legal guidance. Moreover, remanding the matter would only delay justice. The court advised the CIC to refer matters to a larger bench in the future when there is a conflict in decisions.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upheld the CIC's orders, and directed the petitioners to provide the requested information to the respondents within two weeks. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, as envisioned by the RTI Act, and reiterated that exceptions to disclosure must be narrowly construed. The court also directed the release of deposited sums to the respondents for incidental expenses.