Details Of Agreements Between UIDAI And External Organizations Handling Its Grievance Redressal Mechanism Can Be Given Under RTI Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has ruled that details of the agreements entered into between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with external organisations engaged in handling the grievance redressal mechanism of the statutory body can be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the details pertaining to non-disclosure agreements entered...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that details of the agreements entered into between the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with external organisations engaged in handling the grievance redressal mechanism of the statutory body can be provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad added that the details pertaining to non-disclosure agreements entered into with the personnel and individuals who will be covered under the said agreement will however be exempted.
The court observed that the confidentiality is to be maintained by the agencies only for the purpose of ensuring that the details of the individuals are not revealed to a third party.
“The entire contract need not be kept a secret and there is nothing inappropriate in disclosing of the agreements more so when the recent trend is to encourage public participation in such ventures,” the court said.
Justice Prasad made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by lawyer and author Prashant Reddy T. challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to the extent of denying him access to the copy of agreements entered into by UIDAI with an external organization for handling grievance redressal on its behalf.
Reddy had filed an RTI application seeking information about any policies or regulations being framed by UIDAI regarding its grievance redressal and if it had hired an external organisation to handle the same. The Public Information Officer of UIDAI denied the information stating that it cannot be provided under section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Reddy’s appeal against the said order was rejected by the First Appellate Body.
Thereafter, the CIC held that the CPIO ought to have provided the name of the external organisation handling its grievance redressal work as per the official records. However, it denied providing of copy of the contract entered into by UIDAI with the private firm to Reddy on the ground that the contract was subsisting.
Observing that transparency forms the core of good governance and promotes efficiency in government’s functioning, Justice Prasad said that the confidential details about the individuals or personnel can be redacted from the agreement and its copies after redacting such portions and can be provided to Reddy thereafter.
While modifying the impugned order to that extent, the court said that it does not see any reason as to why the contracts entered into between UIDAI and the third party cannot be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
“The contracts have been entered into pursuant to the tenders and, therefore, it is necessary that there is a complete transparency regarding the way these contracts are awarded. The Petitioner has not sought for the details of the individuals which the external organization would be handling. However, a reading of Regulation 3(2)(m) mandates that the security policy may provide for the requirement for entering into information disclosure agreements with the personnel,” the court said.
Advocate N. Sai Vinod appeared for the petitioner.
Advocates Purushottam Sharma Tripathi and Ravi Chandra Prakash appeared for respondent.
Title: PRASHANT REDDY T v. CPIO, UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation:2023 LiveLaw (Del) 929