Madras High Court Asks CIC To Conduct Fresh Inquiry Into Alleged Non-Disclosure Of Information Regarding Govt Action During COVID Pandemic

In the order made on 7^th December 2023, the copy of which was uploaded today, Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the Chief Information Commissioner had arrived at a conclusion without any discussion or material proof. Finding this order to be unsustainable, the court directed the Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry following the principles of natural justice.

“On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it has been noticed that the First Respondent has come to the conclusion that the information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been provided by the Public Information Officer without any pointed discussion or material proof produced in that regard,” the court observed.

Independent journalist Saurav Das had filed RTI applications seeking details in relation to the National Expert Group of Vaccine Administration for COVID-19. Through subsequent applications, information was also sought for details regarding the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, information relating to the increase of the time gap between the first and second dose of COVISHIELD vaccine, information relating to non-disclosure agreements signed by members of NEGVAC, information relating to centralized procurement of vaccines.

In all the RTI applications, Saurav invoked the proviso to Section 71) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 which states that when the information is sought relates to the life and liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within 48 hours of receipt of the request.

Since a suitable reply was not received in any of the RTI applications, Saurav filed appeals under Section 19 of the RTI Act, however, the Chief Information Commissioner. The authorities, on the other hand, claimed that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act.

The Commissioner noted that the Central Public Information Officer had denied access to the information without justifying how the disclosure would lead to any adverse impact on the sovereignty and integrity of the country or compromise national security. However, the Commissioner disposed of all the appeals stating that the information had already been furnished. Thus, the present petitions were filed before the High Court.

The court noted that no materials had been placed to show that the requisite information had been furnished. The court held that the order could not be sustained and set aside the order remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M.V.Swaroop

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K.S.Jeyaganeshan, Mr. A.R.Sakthivel, Mr. M.T.Arunan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 218

Case Title: Saurav Das v Chief Information Commissioner and Others

Case No: W.P. Nos. 5369, 5372, 5374, 5377 and 5378 of 2022