Back
Modifies Judgment To Expunge Critical Observations Against Regular Right To Information Applicant
In a recent order that underscores the importance of judicial neutrality, the has modified its earlier judgment in a case involving the . Presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, the court directed the removal of specific phrases that the petitioner argued cast an unwarranted adverse reflection on his character and credibility.
Background of the Dispute
The matter originated from a filed by Shri Nitin Singhvi, who sought the of remarks made in a judgment dated . The original dispute arose from a challenge by Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena, the former Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Dongarigardh, against a penalty of ₹25,000 imposed by the .
In the initial ruling, while the High Court allowed the challenge citing a lack of and failure to exhaust , it included critical remarks regarding the conduct of the information seeker, labeling him a "habitual information seeker" and noting that he had "bombarded" the with multiple RTI requests.
Arguments for Revision
Counsel for the review petitioner contended that these descriptors were not only unnecessary for the adjudication of the legal dispute—which focused on the legality of the penalty under —but were also potentially damaging to his reputation. The petitioner argued that filing multiple applications to access distinct public records under the , was a lawful exercise of statutory rights rather than an abuse of the system.
Key Observations
During the review proceedings, the Court acknowledged that its prior language might have carried an unintended weight. It noted:
"The expressions 'habitual information seeker' and 'bombarded' employed in paragraph 30 were not necessary for intended adverse impression and they were merely observation made by this Court."
To restore the neutrality of the record, the court formally replaced the contested phrases. The court directed that:
"It seems that Respondent No. 3 is a regular information seeker."
And further ordered that the observation regarding the filing of applications be amended to:
"It is also noticeable from the record that four separate RTI applications were filed on the same date and placed on the PIO seeking information substantially connected with the same subject matter."
Legal Impact and Decision
By substituting these terms, the High Court has reaffirmed that judicial observations should remain focused on the core legal controversy rather than subjective characterizations of litigants. While the modification does not alter the underlying legal outcome of the original , it serves as a significant precedent for practitioners seeking to ensure that judicial records remain objective.
The court’s decision to replace "bombarded" with "placed" and "habitual" with "regular" clarifies that the exercise of the Right to Information Act remains a protected and valued procedural tool, provided it is exercised within the framework of the law. The original order, save for these specific modifications, remains in full force and effect.
