2023 Supreme(Del) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
A. S. Rawat – Appellant
Versus
Dawa Tashi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2670 of 2017 and CM APPL. 11599 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2023

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is not restricted to citizens alone and that non-citizens can also seek information under the Act.

Headnote:

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - SECTION 3 - SECTION 6 - SECTION 7 - SECTION 8 - SECTION 18 - SECTION 19 - SECTION 20 - SECTION 24 - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 15 - ARTICLE 19 - ARTICLE 21 - CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 - SECTION 3(1)(A) - RIGHT TO INFORMATION - AVAILABILITY TO NON-CITIZENS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - MALAFIDE DENIAL OF INFORMATION - IMPOSITION OF PENALTY - SCOPE AND EXTENT - CIRCUMSTANCES ATTRACTING PENALTY.

Fact of the Case:

The RTI Applicant, a Tibetan National and a Postgraduate Teacher (Tibetan) at the Central School for Tibetans, Darjeeling, sought information from the Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA) regarding his confirmation letter, Children Education Allowance (CEA), All India LTC benefit, and the applicability of the Election Commission of India letter dated 7th February 2014, which instructed CEOs of all states and UTs not to deny voting rights to Tibetans born between 26th January 1950 and before 1st July 1987. The PIO denied the information on the ground that the RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable to Tibetan Nationals. The CIC, however, held that the PIO's conduct was mala fide and malicious and imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on him.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not restricted to citizens alone and that non-citizens can also seek information under the Act. The Court observed that the Preamble of the RTI Act itself clarifies that the right to information is sought to be conferred upon citizens, however, the Act uses the term "person" in a majority of provisions. The Court further noted that the RTI Act places enormous emphasis on access to information and such information could also relate to the life or liberty of a person. Considering that the RTI Act also accords information relating to life or liberty an important and distinct position, it would be inherently contradictory to hold that only citizens are entitled to the Right to Information. The Court also held that the PIO's approach of assuming that a non-citizen would not be entitled to information under the RTI Act cannot be faulted to such a great extent as to be considered as malicious and mala fide merely on the ground that information was initially rejected as the RTI-Applicant had declared himself to be a Tibetan national. The Court set aside the imposition of penalty on the PIO.

Issues: 1. Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 is available to non-citizens? 2. Whether the PIO's denial of information to the RTI Applicant was mala fide and malicious? 3. Whether the imposition of penalty on the PIO was justified?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not restricted to citizens alone and that non-citizens can also seek information under the Act. The Court observed that the Preamble of the RTI Act itself clarifies that the right to information is sought to be conferred upon citizens, however, the Act uses the term "person" in a majority of provisions. The Court further noted that the RTI Act places enormous emphasis on access to information and such information could also relate to the life or liberty of a person. Considering that the RTI Act also accords information relating to life or liberty an important and distinct position, it would be inherently contradictory to hold that only citizens are entitled to the Right to Information. 2. The Court held that the PIO's approach of assuming that a non-citizen would not be entitled to information under the RTI Act cannot be faulted to such a great extent as to be considered as malicious and mala fide merely on the ground that information was initially rejected as the RTI-Applicant had declared himself to be a Tibetan national. The Court observed that the PIO was guided by the departmental circular and that there was nothing before him to suggest that the said view had been disproved by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority. 3. The Court held that the imposition of penalty on the PIO was not justified.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the imposition of penalty on the PIO. The Court also directed the Petitioner to comply with the CIC's order dated 5th October 2016, if not already complied with.