Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Through Registrar General, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) - Appellant
Vs.
T.K.Jha S/o S.D. Jha - Respondent
WPC No.1562 of 2012
Decided On : 19-04-2024
Right to Information Act - Disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports - Section 8(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 6(1), Section 8(1)(e), Section 8(1)(j), Section 19(3) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempt the disclosure of information available in a fiduciary relationship and personal information with no public interest, respectively. The court emphasized that the larger public interest must justify the disclosure of such information, and the satisfaction of the competent authority is essential for disclosure. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, highlighting the principles related to personal information and public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the State Information Commission directing the disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports of Judicial Officers under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner had rejected the respondent's application for the reports, citing confidentiality and lack of public purpose. The respondent appealed to the Commission, which allowed the appeal, leading to the petitioner's challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission's decision was contrary to law as it did not consider whether the larger public interest justified the disclosure of the reports. It emphasized that the satisfaction of the competent authority for disclosure in the larger public interest is essential.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Commission's finding that the petitioner was not exempted from disclosing the Annual Confidential Reports of Judicial Officers under Section 8(1) of the Act, 2005, was sustainable in the eye of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disclosure of information available in a fiduciary relationship or personal information with no public interest requires the satisfaction of the competent authority for disclosure in the larger public interest. It relied on the interpretation of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) and the principles established in the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the State Information Commission was set aside.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2-State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in Appeal Case No.1589/2011, whereby, the second appeal preferred by Respondent No.1-T. K. Jha under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) has been allowed while directing the petitioners to supply the informations as sought by him with regard to Annual Confidential Reports of three Judicial Officers.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19.08.2009, the Respondent No.1-T.K. Jha has moved an application (Annexure P/2) under Section 6(1) of the Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking Annual Confidential Reports of as many as three Judicial Officers, namely Shri G. Minahjuddin, Shri Sandeep Buxy and Shri Surendra Tiwari. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur vide its order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-3) holding that the alleged informations, regarding the Annual Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officers, are confidential in nature and disclosure of it would not serve any public purpose and, with these observations, the said application made under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 2005 was rejected.
3. Being dissatisfied with the refusal of the aforesaid application, the Respondent No.1 questioned the same before the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, by submitting inter alia that the alleged informations are not exempted under Section 8 of the Act, 2005, therefore, the order as passed by the Public Information Officer rejecting his application deserves to be set aside. It appears that the said appeal was not decided in time, therefore, the second appeal was preferred by the said Respondent before the Commission under Section 19 (3) of the Act, 2005, who in turn, vide its order impugned dated 14.05.2012 has allowed the same on finding that the alleged informations are not exempted from the provisions prescribed under clauses (e) & (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act, 2005 and, accordingly directed the petitioners to supply the alleged informations to the said respondent. This is the order, which has been impugned by way of this petition.
4. Shri Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the finding of the Commission holding that the petitioners are not exempted from disclosure of the alleged informations under Section 8(1) of the Act, 2005, even in absence of recording a finding as to whether the disclosure of the same is necessary for the larger public interest or not. It is, therefore, contended that the order impugned, is apparently contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. It is contended further that the order impugned as passed by the Commission ignoring the mandate of Section 19 (4) of the Act, 2005 is clearly unjustified and bad in law. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande versus Central Information Commissioner and others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212.
5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the Respondents have supported the order impugned as passed by the Commission.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers.
7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Respondent No.1-T. K. Jha, while moving an application under Section 6(1) of the Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer has prayed for supply of Annual Confidential Reports of as many as three Judicial Officers, which was rejected by the said authority vide its order dated 19.08.2009 by observing inter alia that the informations, as sought for, were related to other Judicial Officers and a
The satisfaction of the competent authority for disclosure in the larger public interest is essential for information available in a fiduciary relationship or personal information with no public inte....
Attempt to resolve the conflict and disharmony between these aspects is evident in exceptions and conditions on access to information set out in sections 8 to 11 of Act.
Internal file notings and deliberative records concerning disciplinary proceedings constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under privacy provisions. Absent a demonstrable, superior pub....
The Right to Information Act emphasizes balancing transparency and confidentiality, ensuring procedural fairness in public recruitment information disclosure.
Judicial officers' complaints are personal information exempt from RTI disclosure unless public interest justifies it.
Disclosure of information under the RTI Act must respect third-party privacy and fiduciary exemptions unless public interest justifies disclosure, reinforcing the balance between transparency and pri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
