The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 24 of the RTI Act, particularly the exceptions for providing information by an intelligence and security organization, and the significance of 'human rights' in relation to the Act.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - Present appeal had been received by way of transfer from the Court of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Apex Court vide order dated 1stOctober, 2021 had directed the High Court to decide the writ petition within eight weeks. Consequently, the matter was taken up for hearing on priority basis.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 07 th December, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 13257/2018.

RELEVANT FACTS

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 is working as a Superintendent in Administration with Enforcement Directorate ('ED'). She had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act') seeking the following information. :-

(1) copies of all the seniority list in respect of LDCs for the period of 1991 till date;

(2) copies of the proposal for promotion of LDCs placed before the DPC together with copies of the Minutes of the Meetings and copies of the promotion orders issued on the recommendations of the DPC from time to time.

4. The aforesaid information was directed to be furnished by the Appellant to respondent no.2 by CIC. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant had filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) 13257/2018. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 7thDecember, 2018, observing as under:

"Since the respondent was facing prejudices regarding the seniority, therefore, he sought information mentioned above, which information neither hamper with the Intelligence nor Security nor Secrecy of the petitioner organization. Though the petitioner organization is kept away from RTI Act, but that is not regarding the information to its employee, if any of his rights have been denied.

The information sought by the respondent from the petitioner does not come under the Section 24 of the Act.

Accordingly, I find no illegality or perversity in the order of the CIC dated 09.10.2018."

5. Upon the present Letter Patent Appeal being filed, learned predecessor Division Bench, vide order dated 21st December, 2018 had issued notices. However, the application for stay filed by the Appellant was disposed of observing as under:

........."C.M.No.54608/2018

Subject to the outcome of the writ petition and taking note of the fact that the information sought for is only the service particulars of respondent No. 2 like seniority list and DPC, the information sought for be provided to respondent No.2. The legal objections with regard to the applicability of Right to Information Act shall be considered at the time of hearing.

The application is, accordingly, disposed of."

6. The Appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 21st December, 2018 refusing grant of stay. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant vide order dated 1stOctober, 2021 with a direction to this Court to decide the issue with respect to applicability of the RTI Act to the Appellant and thereafter decide the stay application. The order dated 1stOctober, 2021 passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:

"ORDER

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

By the impugned order, the High Court, by way of an interim order, has directed the Appellant to furnish the information sought for like Seniority List and DPC etc. which are sought under the provisions of the Right to Information Act ('RTI Act' for short). It was/is the specific case on behalf of the Department that the RTI Act was not applicable to the Organization/Department. Despite the above and without deciding such an objection, the High Court has directed the Appellant to furnish the documents sought under the RTI Act without deciding the applicability of the RTI Act. That will be putting the cart before the horse. The High Court ought to have decided the issue with respect to the applicability of the RTI