Supreme Court: Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest

 We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the

impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay, which

has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 8(1)

(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short ‘the

RTI Act, 2005’). The issue relates to disclosure of marks

of other candidate in an examination. We are also of the

view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in

the category of personal information, yet the disclosure

of this personal information is presently necessary in

public interest, and therefore, it is not an information

which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the

RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must

be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the

process.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 SLP(C) No. 2783/2025

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR. Vs ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR. 

Date : 07-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

Print Page

DelhI HC: Passport & Personal Identification Details Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act to third party as it is invasion of Privacy

 Further, the observations of learned Single Judge in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions are contrary to the judgment of another learned Single Judge in Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission, W.P.(C) 9118/2009 decided on 2nd January, 2010 as well as a Division Bench's judgment in Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshal-Cum-Appellate Authority, LPA 253/2012 decided on 30th March, 2012. In Suhas Chakma (supra) another learned Single Judge has held as under:

"5. The Court is of the considered view that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party." {Para 12}

13. The relevant portion of the Division Bench in Harish Kumar (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

9. What we find in the present case is that the PIO had not refused the information. All that the PIO required the appellant to do was, to follow third party procedure. No error can be found in the said reasoning of the PIO. Under Section 11 of the Act, the PIO if called upon to disclose any information relating to or supplied by a third party and which is to be treated as confidential, is required to give a notice to such third party and is to give an opportunity to such third party to object to such disclosure and to take a decision only thereafter.

10. There can be no dispute that the information sought by the appellant was relating to a third party and supplied by a third party. We may highlight that the appellant also wanted to know the caste as disclosed by his father-in-law in his service record. The PIO was thus absolutely right in, response to the application for information of the appellant, calling upon the appellant to follow the third party procedure under Section 11. Reliance by the PIO on Section 8 (1) (j) which exempts from disclosure of personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwanted invasion of the privacy of the individual was also apposite. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P.(C) 5836/2018

Decided On: 28.01.2025

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Central Public Information Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sachin Datta, J.

Citation: 2025DHC 618: MANU/DE/0639/2025.

Print Page

Can Police Disclose WhatsApp Chats and Photos Collected During Investigation Under RTI Act?

I. Conclusions of the Court

28. The competing arguments advanced on behalf of the parties lead to the following conclusions :

a)􀀁 The designated Information Officer has a duty and an obligation to apply his

mind on the nature of the information which is to be furnished to an

applicant who has sought for such information. This obligation calls for an

active determination taking into account Section 8(1) (a)-(j) and whether an

overwhelming pressure of public interest justifies the disclosure of the information at hand.

b)􀀁 The determination must also involve an assessment of whether the personal

information has any nexus with a public activity or furnishing of such

information would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the

individual concerned.

c)􀀁 The IO must also take into account the mechanism provided under section

11 of the Act involving the information supplied by a third party and treated

as confidential by that third party. In essence, the disclosure must be with

the consent of the third party.

d)􀀁 The IO must also consider whether the information is in the public domain

on the date of the application made for it and trace the movement of the

information from the private to the public domain. In other words, the IO

must see whether the information was put in the public sphere voluntarily

or under threat or compulsion.

e)􀀁 The determination must also include a fact-check as to whether the

information travelled to the public domain at the instance of one party or all

the parties who created and shared the content of the information.

f)􀀁 The determination must be nuanced and sensitive where one of the parties

to the conversation is no longer alive. In such cases, the consent of the other

(living) party to the disclosure of the information may not be relevant for the

purposes of section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

g)􀀁 The significance of section 8(1)(j) which upholds the right to privacy and

ultimately the reputation and dignity of an individual under Article 21 of the

Constitution goes against the tide of a free flow of information and remains

steadfast in holding on to the private space of an individual. The significance

of this provision must not be forgotten or diluted under any circumstances

(Ref. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law; (2016) 7 SCC

221).

29. In view of the above discussion is allowed and disposed

of by directing the Police Authorities to immediately withdraw the entire series of

photographs and WhatsApp messages between the deceased and

and treat the same as private information which falls within the

clamp of section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act. The authorities are to

ensure that the WhatsApp messages and the photographs are not disclosed to any

person or authority by way of an application under the Right to Information Act or

otherwise.

 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

X Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

Delivered on : 29.09.2022.

Print Page

Whether applicant can ask for inspection of premises under right to information Act?

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the inspection of premises and properties would fall within the ambit of the Act in light of the provisions made in Section 2(j). According to learned counsel, the use of the word “work” in Section 2(j) would indicate that the provisions of the Act could extend to the prayers as made and laid before the respondents.

{Para 3}

4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid submission is

thoroughly misconceived for the following reasons.

5. The Act essentially confers a right on citizens to seek information. It enables them to secure information that may be within the control and possession of public authorities. When Section 2(j) uses the word “work”, it is referring to the inspection of documents and records and it is in that light that the said phrase is liable to be understood. The word “work” is to be read in conjunction with the expressions “documents” and “records”. It thus must necessarily draw color therefrom.

6. As this Court construes the provisions of the Act, it is manifest that the application that was made was thoroughly misconceived.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3883/2022

VEENA JOSHI  Vs CPIO,CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ORS.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Dated: 12.07.2022

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court on obtaining information from courts under RTI, Confidential Information and Data Protection

In order to consider the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, let us briefly refer to the various categories of information held by the High Court, which are broadly as under:

(a) information held by the High Court relating to the parties to the litigation/proceedings - pleadings, documents and other materials and memo of grounds raised by the parties;

(b) orders and judgments passed by the High Court, notes of proceedings, etc.;

(c) In exercise of power of superintendence over the other courts and tribunals, information received in the records submitted/called for by those courts and tribunals like subordinate judiciary, various tribunals like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and other tribunals;

(d) information on the administrative side of the High Court viz. appointments, transfers and postings of the judicial officers, staff members of the High Court and the district judiciary, disciplinary action taken against the judicial officers and the staff members and such other information relating to the administrative work.

(e) Correspondence by the High Court with the Supreme Court, Government and with the district judiciary, etc.;

and

(f) information on the administrative side as to the decision taken by the collegium of the High Court in making recommendations of the Judges to be appointed to the High Court; information as to the assets of the sitting Judges held by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

25. Information under the categories (a), (b) and (c) and other information on the judicial side can be accessed/certified copies of documents and orders could be obtained by the parties to the proceedings in terms of the High Court Rules and the parties to the proceedings are entitled to the same. So far as the third parties are concerned, as of right, they are not entitled to access the information/obtain the certified copies of documents, orders and other proceedings. As per Rules framed by the High Court, a third party can obtain the certified copies of the documents, orders or judgments or can have access to the information only by filing an application/affidavit and by stating the reason for which the information/copies of documents or orders are required. Insofar as on the administrative side i.e. categories (d), (e) and (f), one can have access to the information or copies of the documents could be obtained under the Rules framed by the various High Courts or under the Rules framed by the High Court under the RTI Act. Insofar as the disclosure of information as to the assets of the Judges held by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the same is now covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal MANU/SC/1561/2019 : 2019 (16) SCALE 40.

27. Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 requires a third party applicant seeking copies of documents in any civil or criminal proceedings to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for which those documents are required. As such, the High Court Rules do not obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of documents in any court proceedings or any document on the judicial side. It is not as if the information is denied or refused to the applicant. All that is required to be done is to apply for the certified copies with application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information. The reason insisting upon the third party for stating the grounds for obtaining certified copies is to satisfy the court that the information is sought for bona fide reasons or to effectuate public interest. The information is held by the High Court as a trustee for the litigants in order to adjudicate upon the matter and administer justice. The same cannot be permitted by the third party to have access to such personal information of the parties or information given by the Government in the proceedings. Lest, there would be misuse of process of court and the information and it would reach unmanageable levels. If the High Court Rules framed Under Article 225 provide a mechanism for invoking the said right in a particular manner, the said mechanism should be preserved and followed. The said mechanism cannot be abandoned or discontinued merely because the general law - RTI Act has been enacted.

28. As discussed earlier, the object of the RTI Act itself recognizes the need to protect the institutional interest and also to make optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The procedure to obtain certified copies under the High Court Rules is not cumbersome and the procedure is very simple - filing of an application/affidavit along with the requisite court fee stating the reasons for seeking the information. The information held by the High Court on the judicial side are the "personal information" of the litigants like title cases and family court matters, etc. Under the guise of seeking information under the RTI Act, the process of the court is not to be abused and information not to be misused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1966-1967 of 2020 

Decided On: 04.03.2020

Chief Information Commissioner Vs.  High Court of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author:R. Banumathi, J.

Citation:(2020) 4 SCC 702

Print Page

Whether public authority can refuse to supply information in respect of investigation in departmental enquiry?

It can thus be seen that the Division Bench of the Commission has observed that the word 'investigation' as used in section 8(1)(h) should be construed rather broadly and should include all inquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases and for all such cases, the inquiry or investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a "prima facie", determination about the presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report from the investigation/enquiry officer. It is clear that the competent authority/disciplinary authority can form a "prima facie", opinion on conclusion of the preliminary enquiry or the fact finding enquiry. The conclusion/finding, which the competent authority would reach on completion of the regular enquiry cannot be said to be "prima facie" opinion. It has to be a final opinion.

18. Thus, the two judgments of the Commission cited on behalf of the petitioner cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in this case. However, at the same time, I do not propose to record any final or binding opinion or conclusion as to whether 'investigation' within the meaning of Section 8(1) (h) of the Act would include only an investigation by police or a similar agency in the matter of prosecution of an offence or whether it would also include the investigation by the disciplinary authority in a matter of initiation of disciplinary authority. I proceed on the assumption that the 'investigation' as used in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, would include 'investigation', by the disciplinary authority before the initiation of the disciplinary enquiry. However, any such investigation would stand 'concluded', once the chargesheet is served on the delinquent employee. It is not possible to accept that investigation in such a case would continue till the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. Thus, the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has to be rejected. In the present case, admittedly, the two chargesheets have been served on the first respondent and thus the investigation, if any, stands concluded. Thus, it is not possible to accept that the information if furnished would impede the process of any such investigation.

19. The Commission, in my considered view, is right in holding that the public authority or the PIO cannot just stay content, while refusing to supply the information, by claiming that the information if supplied would impede the process of investigation and/or for that matter the apprehension or prosecution of any offender. It is necessary for the public authority to demonstrate with some semblance as to how the furnishing of information would impede the process of investigation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 338 of 2019

Decided On: 25.06.2019

The State Public Information Officer, The Deputy Director of Vigilance  Vs. Vinesh V. Arlekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.V. Bhadang, J.

Citation: AIR 2020 Bom 27

Print Page

Supreme Court: If party can obtain certified copy,they should not file application under RTI

43. We summarise our conclusion:-

(i) Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating

a third party to have access to the

information/obtaining the certified copies of the

documents or orders requires to file an

application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking

the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions

of the RTI Act; but merely lays down a different

procedure as the practice or payment of fees, etc. for

obtaining information. In the absence of inherent

inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI Act

and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not

apply.

(ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on

the judicial side to be obtained through the

mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the

provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1966-1967 OF 2020

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Vs  HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT 

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated:March 04, 2020.

Print Page

Whether oath taken by high court judge can be disclosed under RTI?

Respondent No.1 herein in the application filed under Section 6(1)

of the Act of 2005 had only stated that he wish to have the copy of

the oath taken and subscribed by the Hon'ble Judges of the High

Court which is exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j)

of the Act of 2005, as respondent No.1 herein did not disclose any

public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking

such information of the Hon'ble Judges in the said application nor

was any finding recorded by the second appellate authority i.e. the

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission as to the involvement

of any larger public interest in directing supply of such information

to respondent No.1 under Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the Act of 2005.

The application as filed by respondent No.1 is blissfully silent in that

regard. There is no averment in the application, how the public

interest requires disclosure of such information and the application

is silent in this regard.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application

filed by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 was

bereft and fails to fulfill the requirement under Section 8(1)(j) of the

Act of 2005 and thus, grant of such information by the learned

Information Commission simply holding that oath is taken by the

Hon'ble Judges in public in presence of respectable persons as

such, the information sought for is granted under Sections 8 and

19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act of 2005, runs contrary to the law and is liable

to be quashed.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.19 of 2017

The Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Vs Arun Kumar Gupta, 

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order delivered on: 5-8-2019

Print Page

Bom HC: Document obtained under RTI can not be treated as public document if original is private document

Under RTI, usually the applicant gets photostat copies of the documents which are certified as true copies. They cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act. In other words, if the official under RTI certifies and supplies a private document, it still remains a private document. Thus, the RTI Act does not affect the nature of a document.

36. In Datti Kameswari, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that the copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified by the Authorised Information Officer cannot be termed public documents or primary evidence. Only if the original qualifies to be a public document, then does its certified copy. But if the original is a private document, its copy secured under RTI Act does not get transformed into a public document. In that event, that certified copy of the private document must satisfy the provisions of Evidence Act for secondary evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8764 of 2018

Decided On: 07.08.2019

 Kumarpal N. Shah Vs.  Universal Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd.

Print Page

Whether information regarding misconduct of employees should be disclosed under right to information Act?

 In the present case, the respondent No. 2 and similarly like minded made various complaints to the petitioner herein and admittedly the number of cases initiated and the inquiry conducted against the various officers including the officer against whom the respondent No. 2 sought information for the reason to answer the public at large that on his complaint proper action has been taken by the petitioner against the corrupt officers. Since, the officer of the petitioner has already charge-sheeted, faced the Department Enquiry and finally punished, then what is the personal information with the petitioner and why the petitioner is not furnishing the details ask by the respondent No. 2 herein.

 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that such information cannot be hold as a personal information and such information deserves to be given to expose the corrupt person in the public. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 11897/2016 and CM Appl. 46874/2016

Decided On: 15.11.2018

Food Corporation of India  Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Suresh Kait, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Delhi 88

Print Page

Whether Any Person Aggrieved With Violation Of General Directions Issued In A Judgment Can File Contempt Petition?

 We do not agree with Mr. Gupta that a contempt petition is maintainable only at the behest of a party to the judgment. The directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any

violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to file a contempt petition.

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016

In

(Transfer Case (C) No.95 of 2015)

GIRISH MITTAL Vs PARVATI V. SUNDARAM & ANR.

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to prove documents obtained under right to information Act?

 Even otherwise,
mere marking of documents as exhibits does not amount to
proving the contents thereof. The plaintiffs will have to prove the
contents of the documents. Understood thus, I do not find that
the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the
impugned order. Hence, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
It is, however, expressly made clear that where a decree is
appealed from by the petitioner, any error, defect or irregularity
in the impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be
set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal
as contemplated by Section 105(1) of C.P.C.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4651 OF 2016

Dr. M.K.Prakash Vs Smt. Snehmala Sapale.

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J.
DATE : 24/06/2016

Print Page

How to prove documents obtained under right to information Act?

 In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified by the designated Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act of the private documents are not certified copies within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the particular Department. The production and marking of such copies is permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true copies obtained under the Right to Information Act. However, the true copies of public documents certified by the designated Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of the public documents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3031 and 3048 of 2015

Decided On: 11.12.2015

 Datti Kameswari  Vs. Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.

Print Page

Whether a party can claim mandamus for enforcement of decision recorded in file noting?

A noting recorded in the file is merely a
noting simpliciter and nothing more. It
merely represents expression of opinion by
the particular individual. By no stretch of
imagination, such noting can be treated as a
decision of the Government. Even if the
competent authority records its opinion in
the file on the merits of the matter under
consideration, the same cannot be termed as
a decision of the Government unless it is
sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order
in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or
Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file
or even a decision gets culminated into an
order affecting right of the parties only when
it is expressed in the name of the President
or the Governor, as the case may be, and
authenticated in the manner provided in
Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or
even a decision recorded in the file can
always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or
overturned and the court cannot take
cognizance of the earlier noting or decision
for exercise of the power of judicial review.”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7649 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.20188 of 2017]
Pimpri Chinchwad New Township
Development Authority 
V
Vishnudev Cooperative Housing
Society & Ors.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dated:August 03, 2018

Print Page

Whether order copy obtained under RTI can be treated as certified copy?

Admittedly, a copy of the order was not furnished or
served on the petitioner along with the intimation dated
28/10/2016. By the said intimation, the petitioner was only
informed that the RTA had decided to reject the application of the
petitioner. A bare perusal of Rule 98 of the Rules would show that
it envisages filing of an appeal within 30 days from the date of
'receipt of the order'. Even otherwise, a party would not be in a
position to file an appeal unless a copy of the impugned judgment
and order is available with the party. A mere intimation about
dismissal or allowing of the application would not be sufficient in
as much as the party must know the reasons for which the
application was rejected before it can challenge the order before
the Tribunal. It is now well settled that the knowledge of any
judgment or order is knowledge of the contents of such judgment
or order and the reasons articulated and the findings recorded in
the order, which is sought to be challenged. That apart, the rule
itself provides for filing of the appeal within 30 days from the
receipt of the order and not mere intimation. The petitioner
obtained the copy of the order under RTI Act, which was furnished
to him on 23/11/2016. The appeal was filed on 02/12/2016. Thus,
the appeal was filed within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of
the order. The order was supplied by the RTA and bears an
endorsement about it being a true copy. It is nobody's case that
the order produced along with the appeal was not in fact the order
passed by the RTA. In that view of the matter, I find that it could
not be said that the appeal was not accompanied by a certified
copy of the order of the RTA. Reliance placed on behalf of the
respondent on Rule 99 is misplaced, which envisages supply of
copy of the “documents” to “persons interested in appeal or
revision.” A bare perusal of rule 99 shows that it would come into
play after filing of the appeal or revision and for obtaining the
copies of the documents filed with the RTA. In any case, it would
be highly unjust first not to supply an aggrieved person a copy of
the order and when he obtains the same under the RTI to say that
it is not a certified copy. In such circumstances, I find that the
petition has to succeed.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.361 of 2018

Shri Khurram Khazi,Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,

 CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 Date : 28th June,2018

Print Page

Whether public authority can be directed to preserve information for any period longer that provided under rules of that public authority?

The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer-books. In the case of CBSE, the answer-books are required to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining bodies are required to keep the answer-books for a period of six months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to answer-books does not mean that answer-books will have to be maintained for any longer period than required under the rules and regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer-books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority.

30. On behalf of the Respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of RTI Act, there is an implied duty on the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of Section 8(3). The said Sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under Clauses (a), (c) and (i) of Section 8(1). In other words, Section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under Clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of Section 8(1) will cease to be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, Section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all 'information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 

Decided On: 09.08.2011

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

Print Page

Whether public authority is required to furnish unavailable information under RTI?

At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 

Decided On: 09.08.2011

Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.

Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 497

Print Page

Whether authority can refuse to provide information under RTI on ground that investigation is pending?

 Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must Therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

WP(C) No. 3114/2007

Decided On: 03.12.2007

Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Citation: 2007 SCC ONLINE DEL 1607

Print Page

Whether police manual is confidential document?

 Respondent No. 2 in the present case is not seeking any
information as contemplated under section 8(1) (e), (g) and (h). Police

Manual cannot be equated with the information and therefore, there is
no impediment in giving copies thereof to him. Sub-section 8(2) has no
application in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Judicial
note can be taken of the fact that police manual is Government
publication and copies of same are easily available. We therefore, do
not find any error in the impugned order. The petitions are devoid of any
merits. The same are accordingly dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9971 OF 2013
The State of Maharashtra 
V/s.
The Chief Information Commissioner & anr. 

 CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
 SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 19, 2018.

Print Page

Whether inordinate delay in providing information under right to information Act amounts to harassment?

 Further, Commission is convinced with the averment of the Appellant for having suffered gross detriment due to the delay of over 2 years in providing the information to him. Appellant deserves to be compensated on this account. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, Commission directs the public authority through its Chief Executive Officer to compensate the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. The CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the Appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Central Information Commission

(Before Divya Prakash Sinha, IC)

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Aabid Hussain Vs  CPIO, O/o CEO, Cantonment Board, Jabalpur (MP) … 

File No. CIC/DCABO/A/2016/271739/IARMY/SD

Decided on October 16, 2017, [Hearing on: 16/10/2017]

RTI application filed on	:	31/08/2015
PIO replied on	:	No reply
First appeal filed on	:	05/10/2015
First Appellate Authority order	:	No order
Second Appeal dated	:	24/11/2015

Citation:2017SCC ONLINE CIC  1506

Print Page