RTI On Aarogya Setu: Delhi High Court Asks Centre If Communications For App Development Were Only "Oral"

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to file an affidavit specifying if there are any file notings or written communications between the stakeholders in the creation of Aarogya Setu app or if the same happened orally via video conferencing.

While hearing a plea seeking various information about Aarogya Setu under the Right to Information Act, Justice Subramonium Prasad directed the Union Government and CPIOs of Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and National Informatics Centre to file a “specific affidavit” as to whether there were any written communications with private people involved in development of the application or if they were received from the contributors or advisors.

The court also sought to know if any written notes or files were prepared in application’s creation or everything happened orally through video conferencing.

“The counsel for the respondents is directed to file a specific affidavit regarding file notings relating to the app, whether there were any written communications between people involved in the making and development of the app, whether any written communications received from contributors or advisors, whether any written responses were given to the app, whether any files were prepared having written any notes etc. or all these things happened only orally by video conferencing,” the court ordered.

The court directed the authorities to file the affidavit within four weeks’ and said that it will reserve the judgment in the matter thereafter.

The petition was moved by RTI activist and journalist Saurav Das in 2020 challenging Central Information Commission's order denying him information on Aarogya Setu app.

During the hearing yesterday, Justice Prasad orally remarked that the purpose of the RTI Act is transparency and that the enactment states that any information should be made public unless it is exempted from disclosure and protected by any of the clauses under Section 8.

As the counsel representing the Central Government questioned Das’s “agenda and motive” in seeking information on Aarogya Setu, the court added:

“The question mark about the motive etc is not there under the [RTI] Act. So when the information has to be given otherwise, the legislation has to be amended to say that the motive can be questioned. Because the purpose of the Act is to bring in transparency.”

Advocate Vrinda Bhandari representing Das submitted that Das was seeking information under RTI Act regarding the creation of the application as well as the data protection impact assessments and protocols followed in its development.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Union Government said that whatever information was available with the authorities has already been provided to Das. The court was apprised that since the COVID-19 pandemic was going on, no written notes or files were prepared regarding the app’s creation and that everything was done through video conferencing.

The matter will now be heard on November 02.

Das, in his petition, has said that the CIC refused to exercise its discretion to permit him to participate in the penalty proceedings initiated against CPIOs based on his complaint, without providing any reasons. He is aggrieved that the matter was “erroneously disposed of” and the show cause proceedings were dropped.

The government officials were accused, in the hearing, of providing evasive responses to the RTI queries.

In the impugned order, the CIC held that since there was no mala fide intention to conceal information on behalf of the CPIOs and “there was sufficient information regarding the app in public domain”, no penalty would be imposed on them.

In his application filed in August 2020, Das sought a copy of the entire file relating to Aarogya Setu app which would contain information about the origin of the proposal, people and government departments involved, correspondence between private sector executives and government officials, file notings, minutes of meetings etc.

Case Title: SAURAV DAS v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, NATIONAL E-GOVERNANCE DIVISION (NEGD) & ANR