Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Public Information Officer, Registrar (Admin), High Court of Madras, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
B. Bharathi – Respondent
ORDER :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the Public Information Officer of this court, aggrieved by the twin orders passed by the Central Information Commission/ second respondent dated 24.10.2016, directing the petitioner to deal with various RTI Applications filed by the first respondent separately, keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), while calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against him for contravening the provisions of the Act. Through the impugned orders, the second respondent disposed of ten complaints and four appeals filed by the first respondent herein.
2. We have heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Bharathi, party-in-person and Mr.Sudhirkumar, learned Special Panel Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the entire material on record.
3. Before dealing with the matter on merits, we deem it appropriate to refer to some of the orders passed by this court as well as the State Information Commission on an earlier occasion at the instance of the first respondent herein. A learned Single Judge of
The Right to Information Act must be applied without overburdening public authorities, addressing the misuse of the Act by individuals questioning the legitimacy of repeated inquiries.
Quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons in support of their conclusions, and insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be d....
The main legal point established is that penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act should only be imposed in cases of mala fide non-disclosure or misleading information without reasonable cause, and ....
The State Information Commissioner must provide a reasoned order and ensure both parties are heard in RTI appeals, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Information Commission must inquire into complaints regarding misleading information under the RTI Act, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
The court upheld that public officers must comply with RTI obligations, and failure to do so incurs penalties as per the law.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear, cogent reasons for their decisions to uphold principles of justice and ensure accountability.
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
