30 Important Case Law/ Judgements on RTI OR Information Law

Information law/ RTI is one of the important laws applicable in India. All are have a
right to information. Now there is modern technology to acquire information to be
collected, stored, used, analyzed. To protect the right of individuals of information
there are various laws. The one of them is Right to Information Act, 2000. The Act is
established to protect the right to get information of the individuals. The information
law governs the extent to the citizens to access the information from the Central
Government and other public authorities. The information law is guard to protect
from misuse of private and confidential information by the public authorities,
employers, media and others. The information law has its scope in other fields of
legal practices such as environmental law, public law, employment law and business
law.

Now the information related to the government and other public authorities are also
available online on their portal. We can get information anywhere anytime by using
their portal. There is also law which deals with networking information that is
Information Technology Act. The right to information is the fundamental right of the
individuals. In this topic there are various judgments. In this article we will focus on
top 30 important case laws relating information law.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020

Facts of the Case

In this case, three appeals were filed which arises from three different Applications
filed by respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal before Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court.

Held

Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Delhi High Court judgment by
directing the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court to furnish
information regarding collegium decision-making, personal assets of judges,
correspondence with CJI. No general decision came up relating to the universal
disclosure of above-mentioned information.

Also held RTI Applicable To Office Of CJI

UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, AIR 2018

Facts of the case

Some unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010

approached the High Court for a direction to the Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC) to disclose the details of the marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in Civil
Service (Prelims) Examination, 2010. The information in the form of cut-off marks for
every subject, scaling methodology, model answers and complete results of all
candidates were also sought.

Judgment

The Court read the inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 as pertaining to revelation
of information that is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient
operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. UPSC was accordingly
directed to disclose the raw marks as well as the model answers of the questions in
the examination. The Supreme Court referred to the problems in showing evaluated
answers sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination in Prashant Ramesh
Chakkarwar v. UPSC, 2013.

N N Dhumane v. PIO, Department of Post, 2018

Facts of the case

The order of CIC in the instant case is a remarkable one as it condemns the act of
Department of Posts in denying payment of pension for want of Aadhaar Card. Other
key observation made by the CIC in the case was that payment of pension is a matter
of life or liberty under the RTI Act and applications relating to payment of Pension
shall be disposed by the Public Information Officers within 48 hours. The Aadhaar
card is required for pension has already provided under the RTI Act 2005 as per the
Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005, information which relates to personal
information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or which
would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. The SSP
Ahmednagar has not furnished the names of 55 pensioners and he has taken shelter
of provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The furnishing names of 55 pensioners
does not amount to right to privacy. It is open fact and withholding the names 55
pensioners is a breach of RTI Act 2005.

Judgment
The Court held that citizens cannot be forced to produce their Aadhaar card to
receive government welfare scheme benefits. This Court had further clarified that
such a compulsion couldn’t be made since that was in contravention of the citizens’
fundamental rights. Pension payment cannot be denied for want of Aadhaar card.

Union of India v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2017

Facts of the case

The petitioner in the case has challenged the order of CIC, whereby the CIC declared,
“the Ministers in the Union Government and all State Governments as ‘public
authorities’ under section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court set aside the order of CIC and was the opinion that the
directions issued by the CIC in the case was beyond the scope of CIC. Moreover the
question need not arise at all in the first instance itself.

The Registrar, Supreme Court v. R S Mishra, 2017

Fact of the case

In April 2010, a former schoolteacher, R.S. Misra, filed an RTI request with the
Supreme Court Registry. He had earlier sent two letters to different Justices,
essentially demanding redress in a case before the apex court that he had already
lost. In an evident attempt at using RTI to fight a judicial battle already lost, he
sought “action taken” reports on his letters. The Registry could have lawfully
disposed of this RTI request by simply stating that no such information was available.
Instead, the Registry rejected the application, and asked Mr. Mishra to apply under
the Supreme Court Rules. Mr. Mishra challenged this response before the then
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.

Judgment

At issue was the right of citizens to get information from the Supreme Court , and by
implication, India’s higher judiciary, which has strongly resisted the RTI. The apex
court summarily rejects RTI requests, and insists that applicants exclusively request
information under its administrative rules (Supreme Court Rules) framed in 1966, and
re-issued with minor changes in 2014. To see why the High Court’s judgment
strengthens a culture of opacity in the higher judiciary, we need to delve into the
Supreme Court’s engagement, or rather persistent non-engagement with the RTI.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (Supreme Court, 2015)

Facts of the case

In this case, the interesting issue that was raised was whether all the information
sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be denied by the Reserve
Bank of India and other Banks to the public at large on the ground of economic
interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship with other Bank on the one
hand and the public interest on the other?

Judgment
The RBI in the case took the stand that the information sought for was exempted
under Section 8(1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Moreover, as
the regulator and supervisor of the banking system, the RBI has discretion in the
disclosure of such information in public interest.
While allowing the appeal the Supreme Court in the case held that in the case the
RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial institutions
because, the reports of the inspections, statements of the bank, information related
to the business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust.
In this case neither the RBI nor the Banks act in the interest of each other.

Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court), 2014

Facts of the case

In the case, the Petitioner was aggrieved by denial of information under the RTI Act
by the concerned Public Information Officer in the case. FIR had been lodged against
the Petitioner during his tenure of service and subsequently, a charge sheet, against
the petitioner was submitted. On receipt of charge sheet, the Petitioner applied for
information under the RTI Act pertaining to sanction of prosecution against him.

However, the requested information was rejected by the CPIO claiming that there
was no obligation to provide the same by virtue of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Judgment

The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of
information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which
seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information
sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. The burden is on the public
authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would ‘impede’
the investigation. Merely, citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)
(h) of the Act would not absolve the public authority from discharging its onus as
required to claim such exemption. whether the information sought by the petitioner
is relevant or necessary, is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen
has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not
conditional on the information being relevant.

CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497.

Fact of case
Whether an examinee’s (Students) right to information under the RTI Act includes a
right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination and taking
certified copies of the same. The examining body,-CBSE,- had claimed that it held the
information in a fiduciary relationship and hence this was exempt under Section 8 (1)
(e) of the RTI Act.

Judgment

Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect,
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions
of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result,
unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under
the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI
Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect
and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking
copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the
examinations. It cannot, therefore, be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary
relationship either with reference to the examinee who participates in the
examination and whose answer-books are evaluated by the examining body. The
Court ruled that corrected answer sheets were information which should be provided
to students who seek them under RTI.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Chief Information Commissioner and ors.,

2013
Facts of the case
Whether the information pertaining to a Public Servant in respect of his service
career and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable
properties, can be denied on the ground that the information sought for was
qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act.
Judgment
The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information”
which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act,
unless involves a larger public interest and 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.” The Apex Court
held that copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of
censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a
public servant are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the
RTI Act and hence exempted and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.

R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India JT 2013

Facts of the case

The information requested was an inspection of adverse confidential remarks against
‘integrity’ of a member of Tribunal and follow up actions taken on issue of integrity.
Exemption was claimed on the basis of Section 8 (1) (j).

Judgment

Inter alia relying upon the ruling made in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case, the
information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j). read with section 11
of the RTI Act. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates to or has been supplied
by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if the
Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer intends to
disclose any such information or record on a request made under the Act, in such
case after written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may disclose the
information, if the third party agrees to such request or if the public interest in
disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of
such third party.

Canara Bank Versus CS Shyam and ors. Civil appeal no. 22 of 2009

Facts of the case

Information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002
to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of Canara Bank. This information was in relation to
the personal details of individual employees such as the date of his/her joining,
designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where
he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

Judgment

The Supreme Court disagreed with the order of the Central Information Commission,
and the Kerala High Court. It did not give any reasons but effectively ruled that in the
light of the Girish Deshpande judgement it ruled against information being given. It
has truncated Section 8 (1) (j) and ruled that all personal information of public
servants including details of transfers is covered by Section 8 (1) (j). This is a
truncated reading of the Section 8 (1) (j) and cannot be justified.

Harinder Dhingra v. Bar Association, (CIC 2016)

Facts of the case
In the instant case, the appellant sought information pertaining to the numbers of
complaints against advocates, cases disposed, and violation of the Advocates Act.
Judgment
The commission held that the Bar Council is a statutory body that was constituted as
per the Advocates Act. The purpose of which is to protect the ethical standards of
advocates and punish members for misconduct. It was held that Bar Councils are
liable to provide information as per the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Shri Y N Prasad v. PIO, Ahlmad Evening Court, 2017
Facts of the case
In the case, the appellant had sought information relating to judicial proceedings to
which he was not a party.
Judgment
The Commission held that judicial proceedings and records are public records as per
the Right to Information Act, 2005. Here, the appellant in this situation had every
right to obtain the information he sought for. Moreover, the Public information
officer was directed by the Chief Information Commission to offer proper inspection
of the judicial record at a suitable time and day for both the concerned parties.

Jiju Lukose v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2014)

Facts of the case
In the case, a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to upload the copy of
the FIR in the website of the police station and to make available copies of the FIR to
the accused immediately on registration of the FIR was sought for. The Petitioner had
alleged that inspite of the FIR being registered, the petitioner received its copy only
after 2 months. Till the petitioner could obtain a copy of the FIR, the petitioner and
his family members were in dark about the nature of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner.
Petitioner’s further contended in the case that in view of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 all public officers were under obligation to put all information recorded in
the public domain. The FIR which is lodged is to be put on the website of the police
station, so that anyone can assess the FIR including a person staying outside the
country.
Judgment
The CIC in the case held that FIR is a public document, however, where an FIR is
covered by the provisions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, it need not be disclosed
to the citizens till investigation is completed. But it can be claimed by the Informant
and the accused as per legal provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
as a matter of legal right.
The provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are specific to this effect, that
is, the supply of copy of FIR to the accused is contemplated only at a stage after
proceedings are being initiated on a police report by the competent Magistrate.
That application for copy of the FIR can also be submitted by any person under the
2005 Act. It is however, relevant to note that whether in a particular application
police authorities are claiming exemption under 8(1) of the RTI Act is a question
which has to be determined by the police authorities by taking appropriate decision
by the competent authority. In event no such decision is taken to claim exemption
under Section 8 of the 2005 Act, the police authorities are obliged to provide for
copy of the FIR on an application under the RTI Act.

Vishwas Bhamburkar v. PIO, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

(CIC, 2018)
Facts of the case
In this recent case taken up by the Chief Information Commission, Munirka, New
Delhi (CIC), the CIC was confronted with two centric issues under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. One pertaining to word limit in RTI application and the other
relating to denial of information on lack of producing identity proof by the Applicant.

Judgment

The CIC in the case held that the impugned application was not hit by any exception
under the Right to Information Act. That the CPIO in the case raised suspicion about
the citizenship of the applicant without explaining why he was suspecting. There was
nothing to justify his suspicion. That the CPIO failed to justify the denial of
information, as he could not site any clause of exception under Section 8 (exemption
from disclosure of information) or Section 9 (grounds for rejection to access in
certain cases).

Shahzad vs Department Of Posts, 2018

Facts of the case

The appellant sought information on certified copy of the gazette notification which
superseded the Department of Posts (Junior Hindi Translator & Senior Hindi
Translator) Recruitment Rules, 1996 notified on 05.12.1996; certified copies of the
gradation/seniority lists of the senior translators maintained/issued since 1983 to
2015 by the postal directorate; certified copies of the gradation/seniority lists of the
junior translators maintained/issued since 1983 to 2015 by the postal directorate;
certified copy of the gazette notification no. 20/2/79-SPB-1 dated 11.01.1983
regarding the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department (Hindi Translators Grade-1,
Grade-2, Grade-3 and Hindi Typists) Recruitment Rules, 1983. Part information was
provided by the CPIO and transferred the application to the concerned authority. The
appellant approached this Commission since he did not receive any information. The
CPIO and other section of the public authority kicked the RTI request on point B2 to
each other branches and ultimately denied it.

Judgment

In the case, the CIC noted that the Respondent Department’s claim that concerned
files were are not traceable proves the fact they had it in their possession, which
binds them to provide the information by searching the same. The Commission also
observed that frequent reference to ‘missing files’ as an excuse to deny the
information is a major threat to transparency, accountability and also major reason
for violation of Right to Information Act, 2005. Millions of RTI applications might
have been rejected by PIOs on this ground during the last 11 years of RTI regime.
It was also held that it is the duty of the information officer concerned to provide
information, failing which is he or she inefficient and ineffective in his duties and
obligations under the RTI, 2005.

The State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and others, 1975

Facts of the case
Raj Narain, an Indian national, filed an election petition before the Allahabad High
Court, alleging misuse of public finances by a political party for the re-election of the
Prime Minister of India. For proving these allegations, he summoned the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh to produce a document called Blue Book, which
contained security guidelines for the protection of the Prime Minister in times of
travel. In response, an official of the Home Security of Uttar Pradesh was instructed
to claim a non-disclosure privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. It states
that “no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished
official records relating to any affair of State except with the permission of the Officer
at the Head of the Department concerned who shall give or withhold such
permission as he thinks fit.” Upon the official’s failure to timely submit an affidavit,
Narain argued that the government was obligated to produce the Blue Book because
the government did not raise its non-disclosure privilege and that the document did
not relate to the affairs of the State.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision to disclose a
government record. Raj Narain requested the government of the State of Uttar
Pradesh to disclose the document “Blue Book” which contained security guidelines
regarding the Prime Minister of India’s travel. Government officials declined to
produce the document, claiming that it was an unpublished official record and
against the public interest. The Court reasoned that the document was not an
unpublished official record since the government official failed to file an affidavit to
claim it as such. In addition, the Court reasoned that it had the authority to
determine whether a document is of public interest.

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982

Facts of the case

The foregoing case dealt with a number of petitions involving important

constitutional questions regarding the appointment and transfer of judges and the
independence of judiciary. One of the issues raised was regarding the validity of
Central Government orders on the non-appointment of two judges. To establish this
claim, the petitioners sought the disclosure of correspondence between the Law
Minister, the Chief Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India.
However, the state claimed privilege against disclosure of these documents under
article 74(2) of the Indian Constitution, which provides that the advice tendered by
the Council of Ministers to the President cannot be inquired into in any court, and
section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that evidence derived from
unpublished official records on state affairs cannot be given without the permission
of the head of the concerned department. Section 162 of the Evidence Act provides
that a witness summoned to produce a document before a court must do so, and the
court will decide upon any objection to this.

Judgment

In a case decided by Justice Bhagwati, the Supreme Court of India rejected the
government’s claim for protection against disclosure and directed the Union of India
to disclose the documents containing the correspondence. An open and effective
participatory democracy requires accountability and access to information by the
public about the functioning of the government. Exposure to the public gaze in an
open government will ensure a clean and healthy administration and is a powerful
check against oppression, corruption, and misuse or abuse of authority. The concept
of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know, which is
implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the disclosure of information in regard
to government functioning must be the rule and secrecy the exception, justified only
where the strictest requirement of public interest demands it.
With respect to the contention involving Article 74(2), the Court held that while the
advice by the Council of Ministers to the President would be protected against
judicial scrutiny, the correspondence in this case between the Law Minister, the Chief
Justice of Delhi, and the Chief Justice of India was not protected merely because it
was referred to in the advice.

Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and
others, 1985

Facts of the case

The petitioners in this case were companies, employees, and shareholders thereof, as
well as trusts engaged in the publication of newspapers. They challenged the import
duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under
the Finance Act 1981, as modified by notifications under the Customs Act 1962 with
effect from March 1, 1981. Prior to this notification, newsprint had enjoyed
exemption from customs duty.

The petitioners contended that the imposition of this duty had an adverse effect on
costs and circulation and, therefore, had a crippling effect on freedom of expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any
trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g). They further asserted that no public
interest justified such an interference with these fundamental rights because the
foreign exchange position of India was comfortable at the time. Finally, they
submitted that the classification of newspapers into small, medium, and large
newspapers violated the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the
Constitution (equality before law).
The government argued that the burden of cost borne by the newspapers and the
position of foreign exchange reserves were irrelevant considerations. The public
interest involved in taxation was to increase the revenue of the government, a
burden that is borne by all citizens of the country. It asserted that the exemption
granted to newsprint was not justified and, therefore, could be removed by the
government.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India observed that the government was indeed empowered
to levy taxes affecting the publication of newspapers because such publication could
be characterized as an industry and must be subject to the same levies as other
industries. It also allowed that the classification into small, medium, and large based
on economic considerations had a rational nexus with the objective of taxation and
could not be considered arbitrary. However, where the power of taxation encroaches
upon the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), the restriction on the freedom
must be within reasonable limits.

Reasonable limits have been outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution,
wherein “public interest” is a ground that may be taken to restrict freedom of
expression. The Court concluded that two basic principles must be borne in mind:
first, newspapers enjoy the benefits of government services like all other industries
and must accordingly contribute a reasonable share of government revenue through
taxation; and second, the burden of taxation must not be excessive.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015

Facts of the case

Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable
comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai
after the death of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends
through a computer resource or communication device any information that is
grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted
for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred,
or ill will.
The main issue was whether Section 66A of ITA violated the right to freedom of
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. As an
exception to the right, Article 19(2) permits the government to impose “reasonable
restrictions . . . in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.” The
Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutional because its intended
protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, or ill-will fall outside the purview of Article 19(2).

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology
Act of 2000 in its entirety. The Court held that the prohibition against the
dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication
device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any
reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

The Court also addressed whether Section 66A is capable of imposing chilling effect
on the right to freedom of expression. It held that because the provision fails to
define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected
and innocent speech” could be curtailed.

Based on the forgoing reasons, the Court invalidated Section 66A of ITA in its
entirety as it violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Namit Sharma v. Union of India, 2012

Facts of the case

Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005
address the requirements of and restrictions on individuals appointed to Information
Commissions. The original petitioner, Namit Sharma, alleged that the eligibility
criteria were nonetheless vague and ultra vires the Constitution. The question before
the Supreme Court was whether its previous reading into the RTI Act of a judicial
experience requirement constituted “an error apparent on the face of the record”.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India held that it was ultimately for Parliament to decide
whether it was appropriate to read into the Right to Information (RTI) Act a
requirement that appointees to the Information Commission possess judicial
qualifications and not the Judiciary. The Court reasoned that the Information
Commissions do not exercise judicial powers, rather administrative ones and further,
that not reading this requirement into the Act did not offend the doctrine of equality
firstly because the “reading into” of words not intended by Parliament is “contrary to
the principles of statutory interpretation recognized by this Court” and, secondly, the
relevant sections of the Act did not “discriminate against any person in the matter of
appointment”.

Shri Vijay Kamble v. Custom Department, Mumbai, 2009

Facts of the case

The appellant asked for copies of show cause notices and other documents during
the proceedings by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and currently under
adjudicating by Commissioner of Customs (Exports). CPIO and the appellant
authority declined to disclose the information variously citing sections 8(1)d, 8(1)h
and 8(1)j of the RTI Act.

Judgment

It was held that RTI cannot be invoked to access the information related to that
proceedings. If intervention for disclosure of the information germane to an
outgoing adjudication process is allowed. It will lead to questions being asked about
proceeding before judicial courts and even the superior courts. This should go
against the scheme of separation of powers under Constitution of India.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (ITAT), 2007

Facts of the case

The information sought by the appellant raises a very important question about
whether under the Right to Information Act it is permissible to access information
held by another public authority which acts in a judicial capacity, especially when the
information pertains to its orders in that judicial proceedings and actions thereto.
There may be other tribunals whose orders and records could similarly sought to be
accessed through the Right to Information Act. This matter should, therefore, be
considered by the full bench of the Commissioner.

Judgment

It was held that judicial authority must function with total independence and
freedom, should it be found that the action initiated under the RTI Act impinges
under the authority of that judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use
of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement. Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act is quite
clear, which gives a total discretion to the court or the tribunal to decide as to what
should be published.
D.P. Maheshwari v. CBI, 2009

Facts of the case

The appellant sought the copy of SP’s, CBI report. In response to the application, SP,
CBI responded that SP’s report is an confidential document and hence exempted
under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. CBI argued that the investigation report have
details of the personal information of many persons and it’s disclosure will amount to
invasion of privacy and thus qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Judgment

The plea of exemption under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied as the
appellant is asking for the information about his own case. Even if the report contains
personal information about others, the principle of severability under section 10(1)
can be applied. The Commission agreed that disclosure of complete report may
impede the process of information and amount to invasion of privacy of the persons
mentioned in the report. As such section 8(1)(g) is applicable. However, since the
appellant is not the accused the information regarding him cannot be held to be
such as to be impede the process of investigation and prosecution. Accordingly part
of information exonerating the appellant may be provided as per Sub-section 1 of
Section 10 of the RTI Act.

Mangla Ram Jat v. PIO, Banaras Hindu University, 2008

Facts of the case

In this case the Commission explained it’s role, ambit and scope of exemption and
the context of the RTI Act. The Commission is conscious of the fact that it has been
established under the Act and being an adjudicating body under the Act, it cannot
take upon itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions and substitute
their own views for those of Parliament. The Act leaves no such liberty with the
adjudicating authorities to read law beyond what it is stated explicitly.

Judgment

Right to information as part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and

expression is well established in our constitutional jurisprudence. The Commission is
of the view that the Commission, an adjudicating body which is a creation of the Act,
has no authority to import new exemptions and in the process curtail the
fundamental rights of information of citizens.

Dhananjay Tripathi v. Banaras Hindu University, 2016

Facts of the case

The applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent
death of a student in a university hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors
attending him. The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the
university saying that the information sought could not be provided under section 8
(1)(g) of the RTI Act. No further reasons as to how the information sought could not
be provided under the RTI Act was given.

Judgment

The Commission has held that quoting the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act
to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these
provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide
denial of legitimate information.

The public authority must provide reasons for rejection the particular application. The
Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for
information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract
penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.

Shri R.B. Sharma v. DGCEI, New Delhi, 2007

Facts of the case

The appellant sought all documents including file noting pertaining to sanction of
reward to the applicant. The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1)(g) of
the RTI Act, contending that the disclosure would expose the source of information
and also endanger the life and the Physical safety of the officers who handled and
processed the matter. The appellant authority upheld the decision of CPIO.

Judgment

The appellant may be allowed inspection of the relevant file by the respondent with
the proviso that the respondent shall be free to apply the severability clause under
section 10(1) of the RTI Act withhold from disclosure that part of the information in
the file which is unconnected with the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Mannalal Katariya v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Facts of the case

The appellant sought information regarding confidential reports submitted by lower
formations to higher formations, which was denied by the respondent to the
appellant. The appellant approach the CIC for seeking the information.

Judgment
It was held that the decision of the respondents not to disclose the requested
information valid under the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant may should be
wish, approach the CBDT for the information, who will no-doubt process the case
under the provisions of the RTI Act for a decision about disclose or otherwise.

S.K. Lal v. Ministry of Railways, 2006

Facts of the case

The applicant has filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for “all the
records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways. The public
authority, however, did not provide him the information requested.

Judgment

The CIC observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information
other than the 10 categories exempted under section 8, it does not mean that the
public authorities required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications.

Shri B S Manian v. Department of posts, 2007

Facts of the case

The appellant who was the main offender in the fraud case sought certain
information regarding Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The CPIO has
refused to provide the documents asked for under section 8 (1)(h) & (g) of the RTI
Act, 2005.
Judgment

A disciplinary action against the appellant is contemplated on the basis of the charge
sheet memo issued to him under the CCS (CCA) rules. The denial of information
sought under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act is therefore justified.

Sarvesh Kaushal v. F.C.I. and others, 2006

Facts of the case

The appellant had applied for documents relating to the departmental enquiry
launched against him in a corruption case.

Judgment

The CIC rejecting the appeal, held that the departmental enquiry, which was in
progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted
the provisions of section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, there is no question of
disclosing any information relating to the prosecution, the CIC noted.