Social Worker Not Exempt From Exceptions U/S 8 RTI Act, Must Demonstrate Bona Fides In Larger Public Interest: Bombay High Court

"The logic seems to be this: since Goyal (appellant) is a self-proclaimed activist, the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act will not apply to him. That is unacceptable," the court said.

It also pulled up the State Information Commissioner (SIC), Maharashtra, for castigating and issuing a show cause notice to the first appellate authority for denying information to the self-proclaimed "social activist." The SIC directed that information to be provided to the social activist.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar, in a judgement on March 3, observed that all that the petition filed by one Rajendra Goyal seeking implementation of the State Information Commissioner's order said was that Goyal was a "social activist." The bench, however, found that one of the paragraphs somewhere inside revealed that he was a developer – in the real estate business.

Goyal's RTI application sought information about an Open Enquiry being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thane, against a Town Planner Dilip Ghevare since the year 2017. The bench called this as "consequential." The information included family's personal assets and personal affairs, extending even to details of bank accounts, financial holdings, etc.

"Who is Goyal, and what does he claim to be? This may not be directly relevant to the filing of an RTI query. It is certainly a question of consequence when a party comes to this Court and invokes our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In his Petition, Goyal begins by describing himself as a 'social activist', an expression that is increasingly fashionable these days when a party wants to be as vague as possible about what he or she really does. It seems to have now become an avocation alongside well-established disciplines to say that one is a social activist as if that encompasses the universe of all activities without need of further clarity, and as if that automatically sanctifies or lends bona fides to the petitioner before the Court," the bench observed.

During the hearing, the bench sought to know more from Goyal's counsel about the reasons for seeking information. "The answer to this is one that we have not received despite putting the question repeatedly to Mr Najmi. The only answer we have received from Mr Najmi is that any person can put the criminal law into motion," the order notes. It further adds that Goyal is said to have reasons to believe there is serious fraud and corruption by Ghevare and Goyal wants to stamp out corruption wherever he finds it.

"There is no record of any work done by Goyal in "social activism" against corruption. This is not an application by some responsible social action group. We understand and appreciate the right to public information and we endorse it. But if the statute has certain qualifications to that right, and these have not been found to be unconstitutional (or even challenged as ultra vires in this Petition), then what Goyal seeks from us is an express violation of the clear exception in the statute," the court observed.

The bench then relied on the famous Supreme Court judgement in on section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v Central Information Commissioner and Ors (2013) 1 SCC 212 as well as the KS Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr v Union of India And Ors 2017 (10) SCC 1.

"The proposition that emerges is that the application must be bona fide in the public interest without causing an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j). The Petitioner must establish that the information sought for is in the larger public interest."

The bench observed that the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande was well before even the Right to Privacy was recognised as Constitutional right in Puttaswamy judgement, therefore, there was "no possibility at all of the State Government acting in violation of the right to privacy under Article 21."

The court then also made various observations against the State Information Commissioner for having "completely misdirected itself on law and on the approach to be taken" and for making various observations against the First Appellate authority.

The bench disapproved of the SIC's observations where the SIC gave a direction to the PIO to give inspection as sought of all the documents in the open enquiry and copies to be provided free of cost; for saying that the First Appellate Authority purposely and deliberately wrongly rejected Goyal's first appeal and misguided him and gave the wrong answer; and then for issuing a show cause notice to the First Appellate Authority as to why disciplinary action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be taken against the First Appellate Authority.

The court dismissed Goyal's petition and allowed the State Government's petition challenging the SIC's order.

Case title : Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 78

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment