Court upholds citizen's right to information under RTI Act, dismisses petition citing administrative constraints.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under the Right to Information Act by the Archives Department. The court held that administrative difficulties or resource constraints cannot hinder citizens' right to information. The petitioner's objections regarding the volume of records and lack of human resources were deemed insufficient to deny access to information. Emphasizing the paramount importance of the right to information, the decision upheld transparency and access to information under the RTI Act, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Right to Information Act by Archives Department

Analysis:
The petitioner, Deputy Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research, challenged an order issued by the first respondent regarding providing information to a Managing Partner of a Real Estate firm. The petitioner argued that as per the Archival Policy Resolution, they were only custodians of records and not obligated to provide information. However, the first respondent held that the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) overrides any inconsistent laws. Section 22 of the RTI Act states that its provisions prevail over other laws. The Commission ruled that the Archives cannot refuse to furnish information unless covered by Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

The petitioner contended that they are not the owners of the documents and cannot handle requests due to the large volume of records they maintain. They relied on Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for transferring requests to the concerned departments. However, the Commission can overrule objections if disclosure is in the public interest. The Archives, being a public authority under the RTI Act, cannot object to disclosing information over 20 years old as per Section 8(3). The Commission ensured that concerned departments are notified of objections.

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that administrative difficulties or resource constraints cannot impede citizens' right to information. The petitioner's objections regarding the volume of records and lack of human resources were deemed insufficient to deny access to information. The court emphasized that the right to information is paramount, and administrative challenges should be addressed internally. The petition lacked merit, and no costs were awarded. The decision upheld the importance of transparency and access to information under the RTI Act.

---