2011 Supreme(SC) 1142

2011 (8) Supreme 406
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Chief Information Commr. and Another — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Manipur and Another — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.10787-10788 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010)
Decided on : 12-12-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
The right to information, which is basically founded on the right to know, is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision.
3. Where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.
4. No statute should be interpreted in such a manner as to render a part of it redundant or surplusage.

Headnote:Right to Information Act,2005- Appellant No.2 filed an application under Section 6 for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries initiated by the Govt. of Manipur from 1980-2006- As the application under Section 6 received no response, appellant No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Act -Order passed by State Chief Information Commissioner, Directing respondent No. 2 to furnish the information within 15 days- Writ Petition- Second complaint filed by appellant No. 2 for obtaining similar information - As no response was received this time also, appellant No. 2 again filed a complaint under Section 18 and same was disposed of by an order directing disclosure of information sought for within 15 days- That order was also challenged by way of a Writ Petition -Both Writ Petitions were dismissed by a common order by High Court - Writ Appeal - Disposed of by High Court holding that under Section 18 of Act Commissioner has no power to direct respondent to furnish information and that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only-Appeals-Procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of person who has been refused the information he has sought- Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer- Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial- There is no such safeguard in Section 18- So out of the two procedures, , one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information- No error found in the impugned judgment of Division Bench- Direction given to appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information -Appeals disposed of (Paras 42 to 44)

       Facts of the Case :

        A.Appellant No.2 herein in the instant case filed an application under Section 6 for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries initiated by the Govt. of Manipur from 1980-2006. As the application under Section 6 received no response, appellant No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Act .Order was passed by State Chief Information Commissioner, Directing respondent No. 2 to furnish the information within 15 days. Writ Petition thereagainst was filed by State

        B. Second complaint was filed by appellant No. 2 for obtaining similar information . As no response was received this time also, appellant No. 2 again filed a complaint under Section 18 and same was disposed of by an order directing disclosure of information sought for within 15 days. That order was also challenged by way of a Writ Petition.

        C. Both Writ Petitions were dismissed by a common order by High Court Writ Appeal thereagainst was Disposed of by High Court holding that under Section 18 of Act Commissioner has no power to direct respondent to furnish information and that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only.

        D. Present appeals have been filed against impugned order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A.Procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. So out of the two procedures, , one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information.

        B. No error was found in the impugned judgment of Division Bench. Direction was given to appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information .Appeals were disposed of