Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
PARAS NATH SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7845 of 2013
Decided On : 12-02-2018
Right to Information Act - Information Disclosure - Section 8(1)(e), Section 2(f) - Summary: The court considered the petitioner's request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the denial of the same by the Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 2(f) of the Act, which exempt certain information from disclosure. The court emphasized that not all notings on a file can be withheld and remanded the matter to the Central Information Commission for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including file notings and related documents. The Central Public Information Officer denied the request, citing exemptions under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of information by the Central Public Information Officer was not justified, as not all notings on a file can be considered confidential or secret. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Central Information Commission for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of the petitioner's request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, based on exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 2(f) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that not all notings on a file can be withheld under the exemptions provided in Section 8 of the Act. The court emphasized that the nature of the information, rather than its source, determines whether it can be disclosed. The court also emphasized that the denial of information should be based on specific provisions of Section 8 and not a blanket exemption.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Central Information Commission for fresh consideration.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 04.09.2013 (hereafter “the impugned order”) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter “the CIC”).
2. The petitioner had filed an application dated 06.11.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter “the Act”) seeking certain information including the certified copy of a report sent by the then Governor of Karnataka to the Union Home Ministry relating to the political situation in the State of Karanataka and for imposing President’s Rule in that State. The petitioner had also sought information as to what action had been taken by the Government of India on the said report and also the file notings in respect of the said report.
3. The said information was declined to the petitioner. The petitioner appealed against such denial to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under Section 19 (1) of the Act, but was not successful. Aggrieved by the order passed by the FAA, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under section 19(3) of the Act, which is stated to be pending consideration before the CIC.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed another application dated 07.06.2012 under the Act, inter alia, seeking the following information:-
“(1) Complete details of file notings made on the above said file number as on date.
(2) Separately the daily progress made in case of above said file till date i.e. when did it reach which officer/functionary, how long did it stay with that officer/functionary and what did that officer/functionary, do during that period on the said letter together with file noting and name and designation of each officer/functionary.
(3) List of the officers with their designation to whom before the said file is placed. Also provide me the noting made by them on the said file.
(4) Is it true that the said file is placed before the Union Home Secretary? If yes then provide me the action taken by him thereon. Also provide me the facts and reasons to place the said file before Union Home secretary.
(5) Provide the certified copy of the draft Special Leave Petition which is going to be filed before the Supreme Court by the MHA in the matter of Governor’s reports to Union Home Ministry.
(6) Is there any correspondence made with the Union Home Minister in this matter. If yes, then provide me the certified copy of the same.”
5. The petitioner’s request for the information as sought for in his application dated 07.06.2012 was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) by a letter dated 25.06.2012. The CPIO claimed that the information as sought by the petitioner was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 2(f) of the Act. According to the CPIO, information pertaining to file notings are not required to be disclosed.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the CPIO, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the FAA, which was also rejected by an order dated 20.07.2012. The FAA held that it had not been “found feasible to provide the notings of the relevant file under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same does not includes File Notings”.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act (albeit, incorrectly referred to as under Section 18 of the Act). The said appeal was disposed of by the impugned order. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, that indicate the reasons which persuaded the CIC to reject the petitioner’s appeal, read as under:-
“5. The CPIO on the other hand submits that the file notings as sought for by the appellant at Point No.1 to 4 and 6 of the RTI application, are the part of the file in which an official records his observations and impressions meant for his immediate superiors. Especially, when the file in which the noting are contained is classified and confidential and secret the entrustment of the file noting by a junior officer or a subordinate to the next higher or superior offi
AI
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
