Transparency laws providing a twenty-year threshold function as a mandatory sunset clause for disclosure, not a basis for denial. Authorities must strictly follow procedural requirements regarding third-party notices and conduct a reasoned balancing exercise between privacy interests and the public's right to information.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Rajasthan State Information Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Second Appellate Authority’) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act’). By way of the said impugned order, the learned Second Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and denied the disclosure of the requested information.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND

2. Before adverting to the rival submissions and entering upon the realm of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is considered apposite to delineate the factual background and the circumstances, in a nutshell, which have culminated in the present adjudication.

2.1 The petitioner, vide an RTI application dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-1) filed under Section 6 of the RTI Act, sought specific details/information pertaining to a third-party individual, namely Dr. Ram Narayan Sharma, who was deputed at the post of Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Rajasthan University situated at Jaipur, Rajasthan and was discharging his duties as Lecturer, Geography in the Department of College Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.2 The information sought comprised the dates of the lecturer’s joining, which allegedly occurred in the year 1998, and the dates of superannuation/retirement, alongside all corresponding office orders and internal note-sheets containing deliberations regarding these events.

2.3 The Joint Director (HRD), Department of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide its reply dated 26.05.2020 (Annexure-2), declined/rejected the said application citing twofold reasons that the required information pertains to an event that occurred more than twenty years prior to the date of application and that the said information pertains to a third-party individual, and therefore, the same cannot be provided as per Section 11 read with Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.

2.4 Against the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure-3) before the learned First Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure-4) on the ground that the required information pertains to a third-party individual, and therefore, the same cannot be provided as per the provisions enshrined under Section 11 of the RTI Act.

2.5 Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure-5) before the learned Second Appellate Authority and the said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2021 (Annexure-6) on the aforementioned grounds as enshrined under Section 11 of the RTI Act.

2.6 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned Second Appellate Authority, the present petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and the same suffers from patent perversity. It was argued that the learned Second Appellate Authority has misinterpreted the provisions enshrined under Section 8(3) and Section 11 of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the requi