Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether document writers were entitled to resist disclosure of records sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the plea of fiduciary relationship and exemption under Section 8(1)(e), and whether the order directing them to furnish the information called for interference.
Analysis: The information sought related to records maintained by document writers in discharge of statutory duties. Such records were not shown to be protected by any fiduciary relationship between the document writers and the third party whose documents were registered. The document writers were bound to supply the information available on their records to the public information officer, who alone was required to examine the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8(1) and 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 after giving the third party an opportunity to respond. The document writers could not usurp the statutory function of deciding disclosure.
Conclusion: The plea based on Section 8(1)(e) failed, and the direction requiring the document writers to furnish the information was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned direction under the Right to Information regime was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A person maintaining records in performance of a statutory function must furnish those records to the public information authority, and cannot claim fiduciary exemption or decide disclosure under the Right to Information Act in place of the competent authority.