Right To Information (RTI) Act: All India Annual Digest 2024

SUPREME COURT

Section 12(4) – Validity of Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act – Powers of the CIC – Held, the use of the words “superintendence, direction and management” in Sections 12(4) of the RTI Act clearly provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own Regulations and to delegate its power to a committee formed by it. While the RTI Act does not explicitly grant CIC the authority to frame Regulations, a purposive interpretation of Section 12(4) reveals that the powers of "superintendence, direction and management" are intended to be comprehensive, enabling the CIC to adopt measures, including the framing of Regulations, that ensure transparency, accountability, and efficient handling of its responsibilities. The Chief Information Commissioner's powers to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches of the Commission are upheld. (Para 22 & 25) Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Section 12(4) and Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007; Regulation 22 – Powers of the CIC to constitute Benches within the Commission. Held, Sections 12(4) RTI Act, grants the CIC wide-ranging powers to manage the Commissions' affairs, including the ability to constitute benches. This interpretation aligns with the purpose and objective of the RTI Act, which aims to facilitate the efficient disposal of cases and the effective implementation of the right to information. The absence of an explicit provision for Benches does not negate the CIC's authority to constitute them, as such powers are implicitly included within the scope of the CIC's general superintendence and management responsibilities. The formation of Benches allows for the efficient allocation of work and ensures the timely disposal of cases, which is crucial for upholding the right to information. (Para 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19) Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 465

HIGH COURTS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Information Commissioner Can Direct Public Trust Receiving State Grants To Provide Info Pertaining To Its Educational Institutions Under The RTI Act: Bombay High Court Full Bench

Case Title: People Welfare Society v. State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

The full bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur clarified the obligations of public trusts registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 when they run institutions receiving grants from the state government.

'Reasons For Delay In Deciding A Case' Is Not 'Information' Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court

Case title: Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa vs Central Information Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 535

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that 'reasons for delay in taking a decision or deciding a case' cannot qualify 'information' as defined under the Right To Information (RTI) Act and thus, one cannot ask 'reasons' in an RTI application.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), for failing to provide information of 'reasons for delayed decision' in a complaint filed by a litigant against an advocate.

RTI | Disclosure Of Marks Obtained By Candidates In Public Recruitment Process Is Not Invasion Of Privacy: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Onkar Kalmankar vs Public Information Officer

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 581

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that the disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in a public recruitment process would not invade the privacy of the candidates and that such disclosure is permissible under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain quashed the orders passed by a Public Information Officer (PIO) and the subsequent ones passed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities, which denied disclosure of information related to the marks obtained by the candidates in a public recruitment process, stating that the same would invade their right to privacy.

DELHI HIGH COURT

CBI Not Exempted Under RTI Act, Must Provide Info On Corruption And Human Rights Violations Except 'Sensitive Investigation': Delhi HC

Title: CPIO CBI v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 127

Rejecting the argument that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempted from provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has said that the probe agency must provide information on corruption and human rights violations, except in investigations which are sensitive in nature.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though CBI's name is mentioned in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, it does not mean that the entire enactment is not applicable to the agency.

Mumbai Twin Blast: Delhi HC Rejects Death Row Convict's Plea Seeking RTI Info On Intelligence Bureau Report, Officers Involved In Probe

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUE v. CPIO, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING and other connected matter

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas moved by a death row convict in the Mumbai twin blast case (7/11 bomb blast) seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the Intelligence Bureau report as well as appointment of IAS and IPS officers who supervised the probe and accorded sanction to the prosecution relating to his arrest and conviction.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected two petitions moved by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, who was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and National Investigation Act, 2008. He is presently serving his sentence in Nagpur Central Prison since July, 2006.

Travel Information Of An Individual Is Personal, Can't Be Disclosed To Third Party Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: EHTESHAM QUTUBUDDIN SIDDIQUI v. CPIO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 445

The Delhi High Court has observed that travel information of an individual is “personal information” which cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless it is in larger public interest.

“Travel information of any person is personal information and such details cannot be divulged to a third party unless the same is in larger publicinterest which justifies the disclosure of the said information,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Difficulty In Collating Information No Ground To Deny Information Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MR PRABHJOT SINGH DHILLON

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 568

The Delhi High Court has ruled that difficulty in collating the information is not a ground to deny information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that a Public Authority cannot take a stand that since the information sought for is not available at one place and it will take a long time to collate the same, therefore, the information cannot be provided under the RTI Act.

CIC Can't Comment Upon Utilization Of Funds By MPs Under MPLADS: Delhi High Court Expunges Observations

Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MOSPI v. RAM GOPAL DIXIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 686

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment upon utilization of funds by the Members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).

Justice Subramonium Prasad expunged the observations made by CIC regarding utilization of MPLADS funds and its abuse in an RTI application filed by one Ram Gopal Dixit.

SC Collegium's Reasons For Rejecting HC Judges' Appointment If Published, Will Be Detrimental To Those Whose Names Were Recommended: Delhi HC

Title: CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi High Court has observed that publication of reasons by the Supreme Court Collegium for rejection of the recommendations made by the High Court Collegium for elevation of Judges to the High Court will be detrimental to the interests and standing of people whose names have been recommended by the High Courts.

A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that the collegium deliberates and decides on the basis of information which is private to the individual being considered.

Information Seeker Has No Locus Standi In Penalty Proceedings Against Public Information Officer U/S 20 Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SH SUNNY SACHDEVA v. ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 823

The Delhi High Court has observed that an information seeker has no locus standi in the penalty proceedings initiated against a Public Information Officer, under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Section 20 states that the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) has the powers to impose a penalty on the Public Information Officer (PIO), while deciding on a complaint or a second appeal.

As per the provision, the penalty can be imposed, if the PIO refuses to receive an application and does not furnish the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application.

[RTI Act] Delhi HC Denies Son's Plea For Details Of Deceased Father's Bank Locker, Says 'Larger Public Interest' Doesn't Include Individual Interests

Case title: RAVI PRAKASH SONI v CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 827

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal against a single-judge bench's order upholding the Central Information Commission's (CIC) refusal to grant information to a man pertaining to a bank locker of his deceased father under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The appellant Ravi Prakash Soni had said that his father had hired a bank locker at the Sardarshahar Branch of Bank of Baroda in Rajasthan's Churu district.

Compensation Awarded By CIC Has To Directly Correlate With Personal Detriment Experienced By Complainant: Delhi High Court

Title: PIO, RP CELL, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 877

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the compensation awarded by Central Information Commission (CIC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has to directly correlate with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant.

“Thus, while the CIC possesses the authority to award compensation to information seeker, it is imperative that such compensation directly correlates with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant…,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Disclosing Govt Employee's University Name Does Not Serve Public Interest, Exempted Under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Kamal Bhasin Vs. Central Public Information Office & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 902

The Delhi High Court has held that withholding the names of the institutes or universities attended by current employees of a public authority is justified under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). This is because disclosure of such information does not serve a broader public interest and further infringes on individual's privacy.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela were considering a letters patent appeal against the order of the Single Judge Bench, which upheld the decision of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC).

Consumer Protection Regulations Must Be Interpreted To Align With Overarching Goal Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 932

The Delhi High Court observed that the absence of explicit prohibition on third parties from accessing information related to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 as a gap in the regulatory framework and this the Regulations should be interpreted in line with the RTI Act's goal of enhancing transparency.

It further observed that third parties must provide detailed reasons while filing RTI applications to obtain copies of orders and other documents related to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) proceedings.

Air Force Sports Complex Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: AIR FORCE SPORTS COMPLEX (AFSC) v. LT. GEN S S DAHIYA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1111

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground that the government does not exercise significant control over AFSC and its operations are not dependant on funding from the government.

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula was considering the AFSC's challenge to the Central Information Commission's (CIC) order, which held it to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.

Personal Information Of Employees Like Service Records, Copies Of Promotion & Financial Benefits Can't Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. CENTRAL INFOMATION COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1133

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding writ petition held that the personal information of employees like service records, copies of promotion & financial benefits can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.

On April 19, 2017, respondent No. 3 submitted an RTI application. It was sent to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education (DoE), Delhi. The application requested various details about the service records of the staff at Ryan International School. It also sought information on their employment conditions.

Details Contained In Delhi Police Special Branch Manual Confidential, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: High Court

Title: HARKISHANDAS NIJHAWAN v. CPIO, SPECIAL BRANCH OF DELHI POLICE & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1153

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the details contained in Delhi Police's Special Branch Manual is confidential in nature and is exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said that by virtue of the confidential nature, the details cannot be brought into the public domain.

“While the RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability, the Court must be equally mindful of protecting sensitive information that could jeopardize national security,” the Court said.

PhD Thesis Not Containing Commercially Sensitive, Proprietary Information Not Exempt From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAJEEV KUMAR v. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC) THROUGH CPIO & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1357

The Delhi High Court has recently held that PhD thesis which does not contain commercially sensitive or proprietary information is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of Right to Information Act. 2005.

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that merely asserting that the thesis involves intellectual property or holds commercial value is not sufficient and there must be clear and cogent evidence that its disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.

“It is undisputed that a PhD thesis is often an intellectual property, comprising of both the university's investment in resources or funding and the scholar's original work. This creation enjoys protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants the author exclusive rights to control reproduction, distribution, and adaptation of their work. However, in the Court's opinion, mere existence of copyright does not automatically justify invoking Section 8(1)(d) to deny access to the information,” the Court said.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Declaration That Temples Are Not Public Authorities Under RTI Act

Case Title: M/s Akhila Karnataka Hindu Temples Priest Agamikas and Archaks Association And State of Karnataka & Anr

Case No: WP 8722/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 260

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a declaration that temples in the State of Karnataka are not public authorities within the meaning of section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by M/s Akhila Karnataka Hindu Temples Priests Agamikas and Archaks Association.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Is 'Public Authority', Expected To Provide Information Not Exempted Under RTI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. R. Ramachandran V The State Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

The Kerala High Court has held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority under the Right To Information Act. It stated that Registrar, being a public authority could gather and disclose information obtained from the Co-operative Society under his administrative or supervisory control to the extent permitted by law.

"Improper": Kerala High Court Pulls Up State Public Service Commission For Destroying Records During Pendency Of RTI Application

Case Title: The Appellate Authority v The State Information Commission

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

The Kerala High Court stated that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) has the power to destroy records in accordance with the Office Manual prescribing record preservation procedures and Rules made under the Kerala Destruction of Records Act. However, the Court deemed that it was improper for the KPSC to destroy records while an application under the Right to Information Act was pending.

Justice Easwaran S stated that the State Information Officer (SIO) can take action against the PSC if they destroy records during the pendency of the RTI application.

Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Must Provide Information Under RTI Act Provided It Is Not Exempt From Disclosure: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. V The State Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 773

The Kerala High Court has said that if the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has access to the information requested by an applicant under the Right To Information Act, and if the information is not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) of the Act, the official is obligated to provide that requested information to the applicant.

Referring to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Justice D. K. Singh noted that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has wider powers in the functioning of the society and has access to the documents sought by the applicants which are not exempted from disclosure.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT MADRAS HIGH COURT

Courts Need To Strike Balance Between Individuals' Right To Be Forgotten And Citizens' Right To Know: Madras High Court

Case Title: Karthick v Registrar General

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 94

The Madras High Court recently emphasized that though the courts were expected to preserve data as a court of record, it was also required to strike a balance between the collection of such data and the protection of a person's personnel data.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R Vijayakumar observed that while the courts were expected to possess data, it was the courts discretion to make such data publicly available and such a decision had to be taken consciously and carefully. the bench also observed that the courts could not be compelled to make any information publicly available under the RTI Act.

The court added that the open justice system has brought justice and dispensation of justice to the doorstep of citizens. However, the court added that privacy was an inalienable facet of the right to life and dignity, and thus the courts had to strike a balance between the concept of open justice and the privacy of the litigant. The court also noted that institutions committed to serving justice, the courts could not close their eyes to privacy concerns and a litigant's right to leave behind his past.

Co-Operative Societies Not Public Authorities, Not Bound By Right To Information Act: Madras High Court Reiterates

Case Title: The President v The State Information Commissioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

The Madras High Court has recently held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and thus are not bound by the Act.

Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan thus set aside an order passed by the State Information Commissioner directing Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to furnish all information sought by a man under the RTI Act.

Assets And Liabilities Of Public Servant Cannot Be Shielded From Public Scrutiny, Be Completely Exempted U/S 8 Of RTI Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: M.Tamilselvan v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 490

The Madras High Court recently held that the service register of a public servant could not be completely exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. Section 8(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information from disclosure.

Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the service register of the public servant contains details of the assets and liabilities of the employee which were not private information. The court noted that these details could not be shielded from the public scrutiny. However, the court added that though this information had to be disclosed, there had to be some reasonable restrictions.

The court also added that the materials in the service register had to be scrutinized and if the disclosure is denied, necessary reasons for such denial should be provided.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

High Court Seeks Response Of Haryana Govt On Implementation Of RTI Act At Gram Panchayat Level, Flags Harassment Of Villagers

Title: Bhagwat Dayal Versus State Information Commission and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH)167

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed Haryana's Secretary, Rural Development Department, Haryana as well as the Director and Special Secretary of the Rural Development Department to state steps taken for implementation of the RTI Act at the Gram Panchayat level including uploading of the relevant information about the receipt of grants/funds as well as their utilization.

It also sought details on the appointment of the State Public Information Officers (SPIO) for an individual Gram Panchayat.

No Provision Under RTI Act To File Complaint Against Applicant Who Sought Information: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Title: Bajrang v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 109

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged for cheating and forgery against an applicant seeking information under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, observing there is no provision under the RTI Act or Rules to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought information. The Court also found there was no evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence.

RTI Act Not Applicable To CBI, Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Former Income Tax Officer's Plea Seeking Info On Agency's 'Trap' Against Him

Title: Raj Kumar Arora v. Central Information Commission and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw 411

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected an Income Tax Officer's plea seeking information under the Right to information Act (RTI Act) relating to Trap Proceeding conducted against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Income Tax Officer was convicted in a corruption case and his appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court. The Court noted that the information sought was required to strengthen his defence in appeal.