SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, J.
Shakti Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State Information Commission, Haryana and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 12016 of 2016
Decided On: 05-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant :S.K. Hooda, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ravi Partap, Assistant Advocate General

The RTI Act has an overriding effect over other statutes and laws, and information cannot be denied under the RTI Act merely because a statutory mechanism is prescribed under another Act.

Headnote:

RTI Act - Right to Information - Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 - Section 17 - Section 22 of RTI Act - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - [Information Access, RTI Act, Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, Section 17, Section 22] - The court discussed the applicability of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969. It emphasized that the RTI Act has an overriding effect over other statutes and laws, and information cannot be denied under the RTI Act merely because a statutory mechanism is prescribed under another Act. The court highlighted the fundamental right to information and the norm of disclosure under the RTI Act, emphasizing that information can only be denied if exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act itself.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a death certificate for his mother under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) after facing difficulties in obtaining the certificate through the prescribed procedure under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969. The appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed, leading to the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the RTI Act has an overriding effect over other statutes and laws, and information cannot be denied under the RTI Act merely because a statutory mechanism is prescribed under another Act. It emphasized the fundamental right to information and the norm of disclosure under the RTI Act.

Issues: Applicability of RTI Act and Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 - Overriding effect of RTI Act - Denial of information under RTI Act

Ratio Decidendi: The RTI Act has an overriding effect over other statutes and laws, and information cannot be denied under the RTI Act merely because a statutory mechanism is prescribed under another Act. The fundamental right to information and the norm of disclosure under the RTI Act were emphasized.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order passed by the State Information Commission was set aside. The case was remanded back to the Second Appellate Authority for a fresh decision as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Augustine George Masih, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the First Appellate Authority, Jhajjar, and me order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Second Appellate Authority, the State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had applied for the death certificate of his mother Rukmani in May 2015 to the Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths, Primary Health Centre, Mandothi (Jhajjar), to which a response was received on 19.05.2015 stating that the death certificate of Rukmani, mother of the petitioner, was not available. According to the petitioner, proper information was given to the Primary Health Centre, Mandothi, with regard to the death of the mother of the petitioner and was duly entered by Asha Worker Sumitra in the Primary Health Centre records. Faced with this situation, petitioner submitted an application on 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) to the State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar, Haryana-respondent No. 3 with required fee of ` 50/-, for which a receipt No. 6241 dated 03.08.2015 was issued. The said information when was not supplied within the time prescribed under the RTI Act, petitioner approached the First Appellate Authority namely Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar, Haryana-respondent No. 2 by filing an appeal on 17.09.2015 along with the application dated 03.08.2015. Said appeal was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) by observing that the information as sought by the petitioner has been supplied to him by the S.P.I.O. but no such information was ever supplied. The order of the First Appellate Authority indicates that the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar, as well as the petitioner were not present at the time of hearing of the case despite various adjournments but the file was seen by the First Appellate Authority and on the basis of the record had simply passed the said order. Petitioner, therefore, preferred the second appeal before the State Information Commission, Haryana, on 08.12.2015, which was decided vide order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P-6) denying the information to the petitioner by observing that the petitioner is not entitled to information under the RTI Act and he should, in the light of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, seek the death certificate as per the procedure prescribed therein, despite taking into consideration the fact that the RTI Act has an overriding effect. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the impugned orders.

4. The operative portion of the order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Information Commission, Haryana, reads as follows:

    "The Commission observed that as per Section 17 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, there is a statutory mechanism evolved within the public authority which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. Hence, it cannot be said that the public authority 'holds; or 'controls' the information which can be accessed by any citizen under the specific Act. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. This kind of information does not fall within the meaning of the expression 'Right to Information' as the information in relation to which the 'right to information' is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which is held by or under the control of any public authority. The said le

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top