Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Prashant Reddy T - Appellant
Versus
Cpio, Unique Identification Authority of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7865 of 2023
Decided On : 05-10-2023
Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi and Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Advocates, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contracts entered into by public authorities with external organizations for specific purposes are considered as 'information' under the RTI Act and should be provided unless they fall under the exceptions in Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Disclosure of Contract - Section 2(f), 8(1)(d) - The court discussed the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the Aadhaar (Data Security) Regulations, 2016. It held that the contract entered into by UIDAI with an external organization for handling grievance redressal is considered as 'information' under the RTI Act and should be provided unless it falls under the exceptions in Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The court emphasized the need for transparency in awarding contracts and allowed disclosure of the agreements with redaction of certain confidential details.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought access to agreements entered into by UIDAI with an external organization for handling grievance redressal. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide specific information and revised replies on certain points.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contract entered into by UIDAI with an external organization for handling grievance redressal is considered as 'information' under the RTI Act and should be provided unless it falls under the exceptions in Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It allowed disclosure of the agreements with redaction of certain confidential details.
Issues: The main issue was whether the contract entered into by UIDAI with an external organization for handling grievance redressal should be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for transparency in awarding contracts and held that the entire contract need not be kept a secret. It allowed disclosure of the agreements with redaction of certain confidential details.
Final Decision: The Impugned Order was modified, and the court allowed disclosure of the agreements entered into between UIDAI and external organizations for handling grievance redressal with redaction of certain confidential details.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to the extent that it has denied the access to the copy of agreements entered into by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) with the external organization for handling grievance redressal on its behalf.
2. The Petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI, Act') seeking the following information:
"1. Please state whether the UIDAI has formulated any policies or regulations regarding grievance redressal. If so, please provide a copy of the same.
2. Please state whether the UIDAI has hired an external organisation to handle grievance redressal on its behalf. If so please provide a copy of the contract with such external organisation.
3. If the UIDAI is handling grievance redressal internally, please state the number of personnel who have been assigned to the job, along with their ranks.
4. Please state the number of complaints handled by the grievance redressal mechanism over since January 1, 2016."
3. The information sought for and the reply given to the Petitioner by the Public Information Officer reads as under:
| Information Required | Reply |
| 1. Please state whether the UIDAI has formulated any policies or regulations regarding grievance redressal. If so, please provide a copy of the same | 1. It is confirmed that relevant information is available in the public domain. Please visit UIDAI website www.uidai.gov.in. |
| 2. Please state whether the UIDAI has hired an external organisation to handle grievance redressal on its behalf. If so please provide a copy of the contract with such external organisation | 2. Yes, Further copy of contract can not be provided under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. |
| 3. If the UIDAI is handling grievance redressal internally, please state the number of personnel who have been assigned to the job, along with their ranks. | 3. Information pertaining to the handling grievance redressal internally cannot be provided under section8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, for more information you may visit UIDAI website www.uidai.gov.in. |
| 4. Please state the number of complaints handled by the grievance redressal mechanism over since January 1, 2016." | 4. It is intimated that queries in your RTI application does not fall under the purview of information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. |
4. A perusal of the above table reveals that the Public information Officer denied information to query Nos.2, 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the denial of information, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner vide Order dated 29.04.2022. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. Vide the Order impugned herein in the present writ petition, the CIC had directed as under:
"Observations:
Having perused the contents of the RTI application dated 07/03/2022, the Commission at the outset observed that the queries of the appellant were interrogative and inquisitive in nature. In such cases, the CPIO is not under the obligation to provide any clarification or opinion under the RTI Act, 2005 as it is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion and does not get covered as information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context a reference was also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's observations in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 (8) SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
35....."It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public
