TASK 2.

2
Find answers to the
questions raised in
the attached
document titled
'Questions of Law
RTI' using statutory
provisions, judicial
precedents and
otherwise
 1. Whether the Central Information Commission has given any finding of facts
and/or reasoning, whether legal or otherwise, aligned in terms of statutory
provisions or in terms of applicability of judicial precedents to the facts of
the case, while disposing the matter as a second appeal in a binding decision
passed under sub-section (7) of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 (as amended from time to time and as in force)?

Answer 1) No because, If we look at the decision in detail the Central Information

Commission has not given any finding of facts and/or reasoning, whether legal or
otherwise, aligned in terms of statutory provisions or in terms of applicability of
judicial precedents to the facts of the case, while disposing the matter as a second
appeal in a binding decision passed under sub-section (7) of Section 19 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended from time to time and as in force).
This can be ascertain in the manner that for the point no. 6 the Central Information
Commission has not given any decision for the same and even didn’t comment on
any aspect of that point on its decision while on point no.4 and point no. 5 they had
given a little justification but that was not satisfactory.

2. Did the High Court of Delhi decide as to whether father's name and/or
residential address of the candidates selected to the public posts constitute
information of a personal nature and exempted under wherein clause (j) of
sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 causing
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual?

Answer 2) Yes, the Delhi high court decide that the father's name and/or
residential address of the candidates selected to the public posts constitute
information of a personal nature and exempted under wherein clause (j) of sub-
section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 causing unwarranted
invasion of privacy of the individual. The Court on the merits of the case was of
the opinion that the information regarding the father’s name and residential address
is completely invasive and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The court
further stated that the said information which is sought is clearly protected under
Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not
be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy
of individuals.

Judicial Precedent: In Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain

Abbas Rizwi and Anr1., the Supreme Court has held that disclosure of
information as regards names and addresses or individual marks given by the
interviewers or the members of the interview board would certainly be opposed to
the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act because the members are likely to
be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety and it will hamper effective
performance and discharge of their duties as examiners, if such information is
disclosed. The Supreme Court has further observed that, transparency that is
expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the
disclosure of the information called for. Transparency in such cases is relatable to
the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking.
Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly
hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the
right to information within the limitation of the Act.

3. Whether the information which is a personal information, the disclosure of

which has relationship to any public activity or interest but which would
cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual stands exempted

1
(2012) 13 SCC 61
 vide clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005?

Answer 3) The answer to the above question is “yes” because it is to be noted

that under Clause (j) of Section 8(1), there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information. So if we go by the reading of the Clause (j) of Section 8(1), then it is
clear that when there is a clash between Right to Information and Right to Privacy,
the former will prevail as it leans towards providing an interest to all and not
individual interest.

Judicial Precedent: (a). In Surup Singh Hrya Naik v. State of Maharashtra

AIR 2007 Bom.121, where the Bombay High Court laid mechanisms to be met
before the information can be made known regarding third party. It has stated that
there always exists a clash between the individual who wants to keep his affairs
secret and public who wants to be informed. It is contended by individuals that if
the information is disclosed, it might lead to misuse, however if the information
falls within the exemptions of the Right to Information Act then it will not be
disclosed by the concerned authorities, so it can only be fair to say that only
information that serves a larger public interest is disclosed and there is no point of
contention of misuse made by the individuals. The records of the public servant are
those made in exercise of his administration of public affairs and hence it comes
within the purview of public interest and not private interest.
 (b). In M. Padamanabha Reddy Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore the
Commission held that section 8(2) of the RTI Act mandates that even where
disclosure of information is protected by the exemptions under section 8(1) of the
RTI Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to such protected
interests, the information must be disclosed under the RTI Act.

4. What is the meaning of the term ‘the individual’ provided for in clause (j) of
sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Answer 4) In my point of view the meaning of the term ‘the individual’ provided
for in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 could be “any person who is not falls under any domain of public authority
and who is neither directly nor indirectly comes or works under the domain of any
authority which is either run by the government or which is funded by the
government.

5. Whether the applicant has to disclose the existence of public interest or

larger public interest in the application filed under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 or can the same is argued at further stages of first and/or second
appeal provided for under the Act?

Answer 5) In my opinion the applicant need to disclose the existence of public

interest or larger public interest only if the application is filed under Clause (j) of
Section 8(1) the Right to Information Act, 2005 and not in other cases because in
the former one the exemptions are provided regarding disclosure under RTI while
in other cases no such exemptions are given i.e. the same can be argued at further
stages of first and/or second appeal provided for under the Act.
 6. Whether the Central Information Commission has given any decision qua
point no. 6 of the RTI Application wherein clause (j) of sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was invoked by the CPIO?

Answer 6) No, the Central Information Commission has not given any decision
qua point no. 6 of the RTI Application wherein clause (j) of sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was invoked by the CPIO. The
petition of the complainant in the Delhi High court and the copy of the decision of
the Central Information Commission in 2nd appeal which was made by the
complainant under RTI disclose that Information under item no. 6 is concerned; no
reasons have been given for rejection of the same by the CIC, in the impugned
decision.

7. If the answer to the question in point no. 3 is No, whether the said decision
passed by the Central Information Commission, being a partly disposed of
matter, can be reviewed by the commission itself suo-moto or an application
being filed by any party to such proceedings?

Answer 7) Yes, it can be reviewed by the commission itself suo-moto or an

application being filed by any party to such proceedings because it is such a
information which doesn’t violated any of the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.

Statutory Provision: The Section 18 of RTI Act imposes a duty on the Central or
State Information Commissions (CIC or SIC) to receive and inquire into a
complaint from any person. Where the CIC is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.
While inquiring into any matter under this section, the Information Commission
will have same powers as are vested in a civil court.
 8. Whether the Central Information Commission materially erred in passing a
cryptic and wrongful decision by asking the First Appellate Authority of the
respondent public authority to exercise due diligence while directing to
furnish information in accordance with the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Answer 8) Yes in certain cases, I think that the Central Information Commission
materially erred in passing a cryptic and wrongful decision by asking the First
Appellate Authority of the respondent public authority to exercise due diligence
while directing to furnish information in accordance with the Right to Information
Act, 2005 because Supreme Court in its various judgments’ has also stated the
various government authorities to work by following the golden rule of being
“Precise and Concise” while doing their duties.

Judicial Precedent: The CIC relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1981 SC 606)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that when a review is
sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal
must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such
power inherent in every court or tribunal.

A review may be taken up if:

 there is a technical error in the decision or on account of some mistake or

error apparent on the face of record;
 there was an omission to consider certain material facts relevant for the
decision or on discovery of new and important matter of evidence;
 appellant was not given opportunity of being heard;
 PIO has not enclosed relevant supporting documents in his comments
furnished to CIC.
 9. Whether the Central Information Commission has any jurisdiction to ensure
compliance of its decision in accordance with the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 through the First Appellate Authority of the
respondent public authority, when and where the sole responsibility and
ensuing penal consequences lie upon the Public Information Officer(s) as
provided for under Section 20 of the Act?

Answer 9) Can’t say with full surety but I think that they do have i.e. the
Central Information Commission might have the required jurisdiction to ensure
compliance of its decision in accordance with the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 through the First Appellate Authority of the respondent
public authority, when and where the sole responsibility and ensuing penal
consequences lie upon the Public Information Officer(s) as provided for under
Section 20 of the Act.

10. Whether the Central Information Commission while considering the second
appeal filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, should
remand back the case for consideration and hearing as a usual course by the
First Appellate Authority, where the First Appeal is found to have not been
decided at all or have otherwise been decided improperly/wrongly, and the
appellant does not pray otherwise?

Answer 10) Yes, the Central Information Commission while considering the
second appeal filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, should
remand back the case for consideration and hearing as a usual course by the First
Appellate Authority, where the First Appeal is found to have not been decided at
all or have otherwise been decided improperly/wrongly, and the appellant does not
pray otherwise because in many instances if the first appeal is heard properly then
it is feasible for both i.e. for the complainant as well as for the Central Information
Commission. For the Central Information Commission in the manner that if the
judgment in the 1st appeal is reasonable and justifiable then in the 2 nd appeal the
case can get easily disposed of by the Central Information Commission and for the
complainant in the manner that if in the 1 st appeal which was heard if it was
decided on the bases of merits then sometimes appellant/complainant prevents
himself for filing 2nd appeal before the Central Information Commission which in
return will save time of Central Information Commission as well.

11. Whether the appeal, being the first appeal provided for under sub-section
(1) of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is an empty formality
in light of no direct jurisdictional supervisory and/or penal powers of the
Central Information Commission over/against the First Appellate Authority
of the respondent public authority and whether the applicant concerned can
directly approach the Commission bypassing the remedy of such first
appeal?

Answer 11) Can’t say with full surety but I don’t think that the appeal, being
the first appeal provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 is an empty formality in light of no direct jurisdictional
supervisory and/or penal powers of the Central Information Commission
over/against the First Appellate Authority of the respondent public authority. No,
the applicant concerned cannot directly approach the Commission bypassing the
remedy of such first appeal because of the common principal that, “First act then
React” i.e. first go through the remedies available and then decide further course of
action if that remedy is not sufficient for your problem.

12. Whether the respondent Public Information Officer(s) can only justify
denial of information under sub-section (5) of section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, only when the denial was made in accordance with
 the provisions of the Act and was not a default denial under sub-section (2)
of section 7 of the Act?

Answer 12) No, the respondent Public Information Officer(s) cannot only justify
denial of information under sub-section (5) of section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, only when the denial was made in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and was not a default denial under sub-section (2) of section
7 of the Act because he has to give reasons for the same provided that if it involved
other cases/sections of the RTI Act 2005.

13. Whether the respondent Public Information Officer(s) in compliance with

sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has to
give reasons alongside invoking specific section(s) of the Act, while
rejecting the request for information within the mandatory period applicable
or provided for under sub-section (1) of section (7) of the Act?

Answer 13) No not necessarily, the respondent Public Information Officer(s) in

compliance with sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
has to give reasons alongside invoking specific section(s) of the Act, while
rejecting the request for information within the mandatory period applicable or
provided for under sub-section (1) of section (7) of the Act because such thing has
to be done only when third party raised objection over it.

14. Whether the High Court of Delhi has erred in clarifying or otherwise
concluding the difference in instances, requiring material disclosures in the
writ petition filed as against the disclosure of interest in the personal
information sought through the application made under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, particularly in light of imposition of costs upon the
petitioner?
Answer 14) No, the High Court of Delhi has not erred in clarifying or otherwise
concluding the difference in instances, requiring material disclosures in the writ
petition filed as against the disclosure of interest in the personal information sought
through the application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
particularly in light of imposition of costs upon the petitioner because the
statement is made in a general way and not for that specific case only and
disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish
the bonafide of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice
to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.

15. Whether the provision of reasons in the application made under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 pertaining to personal information of third party,
stands in teeth with sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005?

Answer 15) Yes, the provision of reasons in the application made under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 pertaining to personal information of third party, stands
in teeth with sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
because under sub-section (2), it clearly states that if the third party has been given
an opportunity to make representation and makes a decision as to whether or not to
disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of
his decision to the third party. This means they are on the same line.